Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-10-12
NOT GUILTY.
Il COUPLE OF WORDS WHICH MADE
ZWO SOULS HAPPY YESTERDAY.

Conclusion of the Barrett Trial In the
Dist let Court-rhe Eloquent Sum ming
by Counsel-Chris. O'Brien's Mastery
Plea Secures His clients Acquittal.
In the district court yesterday, Judge Will
kin presiding, the Barrett robbery case was
resumed. Ali the evidence being in, Mr..
Rogers, county attorney, addressed the
jury.
THE COUNTY ATTORNEYS ARGUMENT.
He said that it is always claimed by the
defense in criminal cases, that the rights of
the citizen should be protected. In the
opinion OF Mr.. Rogers tho rights of the State
and of society should also be looked after
and maintained.
The policy of the criminal law was to be
liberal to the prisoner and allow him large
latitude in his defence; and surround him
with safeguards. Society could only do
th.t in case the law was vigorously
enforced when the person charged with
crime was proven guilty. Therefore, the
interest Of all parties concerned justified a
rigorous enforcement of the law in cases of
guilt.
Counsel continued, that according to the
testimony of both the prosecuting witness
and the defendant, they were confessedly in
conspiracy with each other up to the very
time when and near the very place where
the robbery was committed. Counsel said
that it was not natural or usual for men of
the defendants position and general appear
ance to be in such intimate relations with
man like the prosecuting witness without he
had an object in view.
If the defendant was innocent, why did
he not account for himself and introduce
testimony to show where he was at the time
of the robbery. He is silent as to that
That is strong evidence of guilt. If the
defendant had been innocent, why resort to
deception and fraud and endeavor to make
Scutz agree to leave the city and not be
present at the trial OF the cause. Innocent
men do not resort to such subterfuges. Such
a thing was never heard Of before in a Grim
inal case when it was claimed that the de-
PENDANT was innocent All the testimony
went to show that the first advances and ap-
proaches regarding settlement came from
the defendant and his friends. In any
event, that was claimed by Schultz and he
was sustained and corroborated in his view
by the testimony of his friend Frett
Schultz and Frett were disinterested wit
nesses, had no object to accomplish and
were therefore entitled to more credence
than the defendant and his wife, who both
had the strongest motives to testify most
favorably for the prisoner. That the
appearance of Barrett the
stand and his manner of
testifying was strongly against him.
That Mrs. Barrett contradicted herself on
important points in the case, and all the
evidence went to show hat she approached
Schultz in relation to the matter of the set
Element before he made any advance in that
direction. That the desire of Frett was to
obtain evidence to get conviction, and
they were perfectly justified in so doing
That the prisoner concluded that if Schultz
was robbed he must have been robbed in
(Schultz) wanted defendant to accompany
him in such a house. Mr.. Rogers contend
ed that men like Schultz, close, careful
and economical, are not the class of men
who visit such houses. That Schultz did
not belong to that class, and did
not train in that crowd. That
Schultz was to be sure an ignorant man.
but that class of men whose sphere of life is
narrow and circumscribed, and wlose ideas
are confined to narrow limit, are more like
ly not to be oppressed with business cares,
etc., and remember with certainty the events
of their primary existence.
That, as to the question of Barrett's char
acter, it was only supported by the testi-
mony of men whose acquaintance with him
was limited; and, even though his character
was of the best, that was no defence, and
should net be taken into consideration, pro-
vided the testimo ny showed his guilt. He
said this was an important matter. If a
citizen could be struck down in the streets of
our city and robbed with impunity, and no
redress could be had, then it was time that
law be abolished, and each individual citizen
be allowed to protect himself
Mr.. Rogers concluded with an urgent an
appeal to the jury to vindicate the outraged
law. All the evidence in this case went to
prove and established that crime had been
committed, and the perpetrator was indis-
putabiy proven to be the prisoner at the bar.
In view of all the facts adduced, counsel be-
lleved the prisoner should be and would be
convicted of the cline as charged
In completing his argument, it was said
on all hands that Mr.. Rogers had exce!led
himself in making powerful and eloquent
arralgnment of the prisoner. He will be
convicted sure, was the outside verdict
Barrett and wife seemed to partake of the
same complexion of thought. They both ap-
peared moody and Respondent.
MR. oBR1EN's APPEAL.
MIR. O'Brien, for the defendant, made the
closing speech. The gentleman made an
exhaustive review of the testimony, and pre-
sented 1t in such shape, that he declared
but one conclusion could be reached that was
that the story of the robbery was not tena-
bic. Counsel then took up Schultz's testi-
mony in detail, and averred that his evidence
was preposterous, and his story only theo-
ry, and in no way sustained by the circum-
stances CONT cted with the alleged robbery.
The conduct of defendant, as related bv the
prosecuting witness, was such as to condemn
him for fool, and it was altogether uulikely
on any grounds. He met the iran Schultz
on tue cars, was frequently seen
IN his company, and then took the man
Schultz to within $50 yards of a fire.
qnented thoroughfare, jackson street, on
Fifth street. and there knocked h m down
and robbed him. This witness swears the
blow was not such as to stun him, the wound
inflicted required no care afterward, was
scarcely perceptible, and then the defendant
crowded him down to the pavement got on
top OF MN, s1ezed his throat with his left
hand, and with his right hand searched
Schultz right hip pocket, etc. Counsel de-
scrlbed the manner of search and claimed it
impossible to have been done, the two men
occupying the relative positions
as stated by witness. Counsel claimed
the witness had foroot+on |
or gotten mixed on his set story in this re-
spect. Counsel further stated that Schultz
had sworn that Barrett had not choked him.
had not spoken or threatened. Counsel
commended his style of highway rob cry as
the cooling dove order for oentleness Aud