Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-12-10
DAMAGING FREsHETs IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.
Report on the Production of Wine and
Brandy in Los Angeles County.
CALIFORNIA.
The Schroeder Trial-Arauments of Coun-
sci Commenced.

week, the spectators DelnS attracted, no
doubt, with desire to hear the speeches of
the lawyers in the case. Rev. DIR. Stebbins
was present, and sat alongside of Schroeder.
OPENING ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENsE.
w. w. Foote, of counsel for the defense,
made the first speech to the jury, in accord
ance with an agreement made with counsel
for the prosecution. He reiterated the open
ing statement that the defendant was JUS
fed in killing DR.. Lefevre, and that he was
not mentally responsible for the act. He
then reviewed the conduct of the prosecution,
taking the ground that there was no
necessity for the prosecution to prove
anything but the killing of DIR. Lee
fevre, but they had gone further, at tbs
instigation of some one unknown, to utterly
break down the defendants character for this
and all time. He said they had literally
raked hell with a fine tooth-comb" to prove
that the defendant is gambler and rake.
They have not proved him a gambler, and
they have not shown that he visited houses
of ilI-fame When this disgraceful charge
was made the fortitude Of the defendant was
shaken. He bore up under all else. Mr..
Foote then asserted that the policemen swore
to state of facts that did not exist when
they testified that Schroeder came from
house of ill-fame in q drunken and maudlin
condition, and he also expressed some doubt
as to the integrity of the swearing. He said
that the average police officer was peculiar
kind of an animal, and so is the detective.
Every act of Schroder's from the time Of his
marriage until the present time has been sub
jected to the closest investigation. There is
nothing against him except that he played
cards with his friends. The efforts made
by the prosecution to blacken and Willy
this defendant must have sprung from con-
viction that no jury of his countrymen would
convict him of any crime, and therefore
the design was to ruin him. MIR. Foote re-
viewed the testimony of Sarah Gallagher,
saying Father King was brought in to sus.
tain broken and tottering prosecution.
They did not bring Father Mcguire here to
prove that Sarah had never seen him, but to
prove that she had made a different state
ment to him than that which she swore she
made The course of conduct toward Sarah
Gallagher was not respectable or decent.
That girl was asked if she was in the Mag
dalen Asylum, and she indignantly replied
mo" and the prosecution did not follow
the question with other testimony. Counsel
then commended that if the defendant be-
lieved that Lefevre had seduced his wife he
ought not to be convicted for killing him,
even if he was perfectly sane. 81 will
say here" he continued, that DIR.
Lefevre used his professional oppor-
tunities to seduce Mrs. Schroeder, and he de-
served the death which he met, and
the unwritten law of the country justifies the
act. No American jury has ever stultihed
itself by bringing in verdict of guilty in
case of this kind. If you, gentlemen of the
jury, acQuit this man, no appeal can be taken.
The law of human nature and the law OF GOD
planted in the bosom justifes the act. DIR.
Lefevre occupied to Mrs. Schroeder profes-
sional relation, and when he took advantage
of his position to commit adultery with her,
whether with her consent or not, he forfeited
his life. Gentlemen, there is too much OF
that sort of thing going on. Lefevre learned
from Sarah, who came to his office, that
Schroeder was away from home, and he
goes under the guise of pulling tooth
for Sarah to Schroder's house. When Schro,
der came home he fed out of the back door.
The books are full of cases showing where
intelligent men have redressed their wrongs
by killing the seducer, and invariably the
Jury have returned verdict of not guilty
| say every man of spirit will do the same
thing. 1t is just and necessary for juries to
protect the honor and peace of families as to
protect life. LefevTe dead in his grave is
better off than this defendant. [Shroder broke
down with grief at this point and sobbed bit
terly There is too much OF this maudlin senti-
mentality which talks so much of the value
of human life and SO little of the sacredness
and happiness of domestic peace and honor.
l believe in American juries, and believe
you are going to acquit this man. believe
that the hour of this defendants deliverance
is at hand"
Mr.. Foote closed here. At u NJ. the Court
took recess until 1880 p. NJ.
Afternoon Session.
The Court convened again at 1910 P. NJ.
u e..
the prosecution in the presence of vast au-
dience. He said in substance on the main
points:
The law was intended for the protection of
the community. To pay legislators to make
laws, to pay judges, juries and sheriffs to
execute them, the people are heavily bur.
dened with taxes. What does it all mean !?
Is it not to allow every citizen to pursue
peacefully his occupation? Does it not mean
that it will protect his life from the assassin's
bullet and knife; that it will protect his rep
utation and his property? The law must
protect the citizen or he must protect him
self. When murders are committed, when
larceny, perjury, arson and forgery are
committed, the law must punish the
guilty, or the aggrieved man will take his
pistol and avenge the wrong. When a clear
case of crime is brought before jnries they
must protect the community or it will relapse
into mobocracy. Counsel has told you
about outside influences. l know nothing of
them. But one thing do know: A house is
clad in mourning, young wife has been left
a widow, and four children have been left
fatherless. Their grief was not paraded
before you. No bloody clothing has been
held up before you. ask why was Mrs.
Schroeder not put upon the stand?
Mr.. MeAllister--H your Honor please,
counsel for the prosecution is arguing on
question as to the improperly of which you
have already ruled upon. The defense cannot
be prejudiced in this case before the jury by
reason OF not calling Mrs. Schroeder.
The Court-Certainly no presumption can
work against the prosecution by reason OF
Mrs. Schroder's not testifying.
MIR. Montgomery-Do l understand that
the Court rules against such argument?
The Court-My ruling was that such in
structions were prejudicial. The question
arises whether the argument on such failure
of Mrs. Schroeder to testify is permissible.
Mr.. Montgomery-We are willing to take
the chances on such proposition.
Mr.. McAllister-We don't propose to let
you take such chances.
Mr.. Montgomery-Very well, then will
conform to the rulings of the Court with the
protest that it is a revolution in every prin-
ciple of law and justice and common sense.
The Court-Mr. Montgomery, I claim to
act in as good faith as counsel at the bar, and
am willing to leave the matter to the judg-
ment of any competent person. Your re-
marks, however, deserve the severest con-
demnation.
Mr. Montgomery shall endeavor to con-
form with the rulings. Did your Honor rule
that l am not to comment upon the reason
which induced the defense not to bring Mrs.
Schroeder here?
The Court-My ruling is that the testimo-
ny of Dr.. Stebbins as to what she said was as
high testimony as any that could be brought
here.
Mr.. MoHtgomery-That is not what l
allude to. Counsel for the defense have been
permitted to argue to the jury without in
corruption that seduction has been COM
mitted.
The Court have ruled once. twice.
thrice that as an absolute fact the question of
has not the slightest consequences
in the case.
Mr.. Montgomery-You our Honor permitted
the defense TO produce the unsworn testi-
mcny of Mrs. Schroeder.
Mr.. McAllister-We have no objection,
when you say you do not believe what Mrs.
Schroeder said was true.
Mr. Moptgomery-I cannot discuss any
question Ringing on the first without COM
menting upon the value of her unsworn testi-
mony out Of Court.
Mr. McAllister-He has right to say that
her testimony is untrue.
Alr. Montgomery have also the right to
say why believe it to be untrue. Iwilldiscuss