Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1880-08-02
WESTERN DISPATCHES.
THE OAKLAND TRAGEDY.
Tho Testimony Closed-Argument OF
Counsel.

SSs.nSAs
OAKLAND. CAL, August AIN the case
OF E. F. Schroeder. charged with the
murder OF DR.. Lefsvre. the testimony
being closed on Saturday in the Police
Court, Colonel Gibson. District Attor-
nsy made the following opening arsu-
ment:
May It please the court. this Is q
charge against the defendant Of murder.
The only question necessary to call at
tention to 10 that Of admitting the de-
PENDANT to bail. II was Arst necessary
to define the crime Of murder. Counsel
read the law. This was murder in the
fullest ssnss Of the law. There Is man
iisst the greatest elaboration. There
was no case where more forsthought or
preparation was manifested. It was not
his purpose to 60 outside or exhibit .
spirit Of revenge. Counsel read Hor-
toms criminal law at length. The other
side may talk Of unwrittsn law and the
unlikelihood Of o jury convichnR. IL
Il Is o case OF clear murder the
Court has no discretion. II was
the sworn duty OF the magistrate to
commit the defendant for trial before the
Superior Court. The only question 10
whether the proof is evident or pre-
sumptiye, II the court decide this, in
such case the court had no discretion.
Il must commit the defendant. II the
court decided the proof not evident nor
presumptivs, the great offsnss was bail.
able. He quoted Bishop on criminal
law. where he states that when passions
are excited the law deals tenderly. and
makes homicide granddaughter. This
CASE was outside Of this. To entitls Q
homicide to this tender consideration
the offender must be detected In the
very net which stirs the blood 80 power
fully as to impair reason for the moment.
Bishop says that II the action 10 taken
merely on hearing OF the offsnss the
crime IL not murder. Nearly six weeks
had elapsed In this case. The Law says
that II passion had time to cool killing
Is murder, being evidence OF
depressed spirit In which malice
resides. The question what II
sufficient cooling time, and what II the
pr~oyocation, are questions Of law, not
Of fact. Again, quoting from Harton.
counsel said that on whether the act
was committed in the first transport Of
passion or not hangs the question Of
murder or manslaughter. Killing q man
deliberately and on revenge would be
murder. Tho defendant had ample
time to become cool. Counsel quoted
several cases from Fishers Criminal
Digest. The Court should not consider
whether the Jury would acquit the de.
PENDANT, or what the jury might do out
side the law. but what the jury may DO
inside the law.
The Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania
decided last year that the safe rule In
admitting to bail was for the court to
consider whether II the jury found a do.
PENDANT guilty 1t would carry out tho
sentence. -,
Counsel read other authorities to
prove the case before the Court not bail.
able.
Mr.. Montgomery. attorney for the
prosecution, followed with o very forci-
Bic argument, OF which the following 10
an extract: According to the theory OF
defendants counsel, defendants mind
was so wrought upon by the seduction
Of his wife that he was irresponsible Tor
his acts from the 18th OF June mp to the
Staying Of DR.. Lefsvre. He exclaimed
everywhere that he had no home. Was
II malice or grief that preyed on his
mind2 I'll show your Honor that It
was not grief or sorrow. but hatred and
q desire for revenge. He had suspected
his wife before. DR.. Stsbbins proposed
at the reconciliation that be and Edward
20 and demand an account. Now, SIR,
II that husband and father believed that
was q virtuous woman up to that night,
II they believed that Lsfevrs had
used his confidential position to ssduce
nm innocent wife and mother. would
they have been haRgling over the few
dollars they owed the doctor for DENTS.
try7 Ye gods. no! In the face OF o
crime that would shrek to heaven. would
they have gone without paying . cent to
demand q recsipted bill2 And does DR..
Stsbbins show o state OF mind such as o
father would smarting under such an
outrags2 Feeling great interest in keep
ing the peace. DR.. Stebbins did not have
n idea that Edward intended any vio-
lence ON Lefsvre, aad did not even In.
auire IL he had any arms. T.sy de-.
manded o recsiptcd bill for money they
had never paid and did not intend to
pay. DR.. Stsbbins Is o just man.
Would he have demanded q recsipted
bill mud threatened to blow o mans
brains out II the bill had not been
paid In some way not according to
his ideas2 He had previously said that
the receiptsd bill should close the rels-
tons between the family and him." The
vile had been reconciled. the trouble
settled, and Lsfevre only remained. Dr..
Lsievre was not o bully; aud ! think
| that II DR.. Stebbins came OF me In that
savage way, with such q savass.looking
son.in.law at his side, / don't know
what I would do. And that terribly
wrongsd and injured husband. at the
dictation OF his father-in.law, whites out
the receipt. Now, according 70 their
| showing, what consideration did DR.. Le.
feyre eet7 Only bis Illicit intercourse.
| Talk TO me about the mans being
crazedi Look at the hand writing. l
tell YOU, sirs, the wife carries today In