Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-12-11
THE COAST NEWS.
SPECIAL TO THE RECORD UNION.
SCHROEDER TRIAL AGAIN.
Decision in an Arizona Railroad Tax
Suit.
THE CASE. OF LETTER-RIFLING.
Items from Portland-The Idaho Mining
Suit, Etc, Etc.
CALIFORNIA.
Tine Schroeder Trial.

tense, continued MS argument. fle caliS
the attention of the jury to q statement o
counsel for the prosecution that Mr.. and Mrs
Schroeder were married May 9th, and tina
their first child WAS born December 23th fol
lowing The impression conveyed was tina
improper relations existed between the de
fendant and his wife before their marriag
vows were celebrated. He read at Iengtl
from various medical authorities to show tina
children bern at SIX or seven months gesta
ton survive to ordinary age, and that chill
dren of five months CESSATION may live fo
several months. There was nothing in tn,
circumstance introduced by counsel TO prov,
that the first child, which did moi
live long, was iilegitimate. He dwell
at length upon the close relation
which must exist between the dentist ant
the patient in his chair, a3d asserted that
Lefevre used the opportunity OF his profes
sion to debauch Mrs. Schroeder. He passed
in review the testimony of Sarsf
Gallagher. Somebody went out of the back
door Of that house secretly. 1t was thie
and robber who went out. He reviewed the
testimony bearing upon the interview be
tween the defendant and DIR. Stebbins The
defendant stated to Dr. Stebbins the full
story and all the facts. Then counsel de
scribed the interview between DR.. Stebbins
and his daughter. II there was a person il
the world to whom she would disclose the
whole truth, that person was her father
What must have been his feelings? But
there was not one word of anger and reproach
When DIR. Lefevre was accused of an act
involving his honor and professional integrity
he stood silent and submitted to personal in
dignity. With what scorn and indignation
an innocent man would have resented it. DR.
Stebbins' testimony is confirmed by the
books. Tie visit to Lefevre's Office was
a false step, but it was rather DIR. Stebbins
than the defendants. He then took ul
Sarah Gallagher's testimony, citing the cir
eumstance that she and DR.. Lefeyre both
belonged to the Roman Catholic Church, and
holding that this fact, in a measure. accounted
for the bond of friendship existing between
them. No successful attempt was made tc
impeach Sarah Gallagher. There was some
thing which Sarah said which she did not
want exposed, and he had recalled her, s.
that Mr. Montgomery could have brought il
out. Counsel then grouped together all the
facss brought cut in Sarah Gallagher's testi-
mouy, also the admissions and con-
duct of Lefevre, the confessions of Mrs.
Schroeder, and held that the adulterous and
treacherous act was committed by deceased.
He cited authorities relating to confessions
and the genuine proof of adultery, contending
that the defense had established conclusively
and beyond the shadow of doubt that DR..
Lefevre did commit adultery with defend
ants wife He then took up the alleged
dying declaration in writing, and said, when
the Court ruled that out, the prosecution en-
deavored to introduce verbal declaration.
On this point the testimony of witnesses was
fully reviewed. The fact was brought out
that of the eight witnesses who we're with Le-
fevre in his dying hours, DR. Roach was the
only one who heard DR. Lefevre say that
he was shot without cause.
Mr.. McAilIster then proceeded to the sub
ject of mental responsibility, touching all the
phases of insanity, impulsive, morbid. moral,
morose, melancholy, emotional, paroxysmal,
hereditary, transitory, homicidal and suicidal.
. claim" said counsel, that this is case
of mental insanity. l never claimed it was
moral insanity" He then took up the hypo-
thetical question propounded by the prosecu-
ton to their own witness, and said answers
favorable to the other side were received, be-
cause all the facts of this case were not en-
braced in the question. There is no testimony
that Schroeder was at times coDvivial and joy.
Gus, although the hypothetical question sup
poses such a case.
Counsel then proceeded to describe the
struggle of defendant to bury this secret in
u.
excursion to the mountains was dwelt upon.
His depressions of mind and melancholy
were depicted in an eloquent manner. About
the draw poker games, counsel said there was
no evidence whatever that the defendant
played any game of cards after June 1lth.
Concerning the testimony of police officers,
Mr.. McAllister said there was always ten
dency on the part of policemen to convict.
Many eminent Judges refuse TO convict a
man on the unsupported testimony of detect
ives and police officers. The defendants
visit to Lefevre's house on the 26Sh of July
was next taken up. Counsel contended tnat
some conversation passed between the de,
PENDANT and Lsfevre at that time. Unqu5s.
tionably the defendant went there to tell
Lefevre that he must leave town, but an ir-
resistable impulse changed his mind The
sight of Lefevre was the spark that fred his
magazine. The sight of the man who had
debauched his wife, destroyed his home and
dishonored his family overthrow mis- reason.
Mr. McAllister concluded the closing ad.
dress for the defense with brilliant perora.
ton, and the Court adjourned until 1896
M.
District Attorney Gibsen, in closing for
the prosecution, opened his speech at 1:0i
P. NJ. He told the jury that he appeared be.
fore the jury to discharge his sworn duty in
the interests of the people and the interests
of this defendant also. He said he had never
witnessed defense SO himsy in its testimony
as this. On the other hand, the State has
made out perfect case. It was absolutely
no defense. It was unsupported by evidence.
One issue is: Was the defendant jus.
tilted in committing the offense q The
other is: "Was the defendant in
a responsible mental condition 81 The
defense of justification in this case
rests wholly in the assumption that Le
ievre was guilty of adultery with defendants
wife. Is there evidence on this point? The
testimony relating to adultery was only ad-
mitted to prove the condition of defendant.
mind, and for no other purpose. Il cannot
under the ruling Of the Court, be considered
ton. There is only one issue left for you tC
consider ; it is this WAS the defendant
when he shot Dr. Lefevre, in mental condi
ton Of irresponsibility 2" If you find that b,
was, he is entitled to acquittal but that fac
must be established by preponderance o.
testimony. The defendant is either guilty O
murder in the first degree Or he is not guilty
OF any crime. Gentlemen, in your mercy yo,
might say as far as We are personally con
cerned we will let this defendant go, but thi
is not a personal matter. In this you owe
duty to the State, a duty to the law and I
duty to society-a sworn and solemn duty.
At the conclusion of Mr.. Gibson's argu
ment for the defense, and Court asked tn,
jury whether they wished to receive thei
instructions and retire for the consideration
Of the case, or take half an hour for supper
and then consider the case Mr. McAiliste
suggested three quarters of an hour, and tn,
Court then took recess for that time.
On reassembling, and after the jury wa
polled, the Judge delivered his charge. Tn
charge was very long, and touched upon tn,
main points in the case, embodyiug the set
tied instructions proposed by both the prose
cution and defense. During the course of hi
charge the Judge said "The defendant il
not to be acquitted through sympathy. O
convicted because public opinion seeks al
example. In the jury box that sympathy
and that prejudice must be wholly discarded
in consideration of the evidence, and yol
should consider only the main point
involved in the case. The presumption
must. occupy your minds, that /
there is a reasonable doubt it l4ust be given +