Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-12-10

jury, but as comment on the ruling of the
Court. say that if Mrs. Schroeder was
placed on the stand and testified that adultery
was committed, it might exert an influence
on defendants mind
MIR. Montgomery-If Mis-. Schroeder had
been on the stand we could have brought out
many things that have not been laid bare.
Objectionable testimony was introduced.
The Court-Did you ask the Court TO stop
its introduction:
MIR. Montgomery-No, because / thought
that the rulings would be in perfect accord
ance with your rulings throughout the case.
The Court am not responsible for the
shortcomings or idiosyncracies of your men,
ory.
Mr.. Montgomery turning to the juryl-I
will now try to keep in accordance, gentle
men Of the jury, with the rulings of the
Court.
The Court-Mr. Montgomery, don't pro-
pose to allow you to misrepresent the Court
TO the jury. II you cannot proceed as gen.
tleman. will order you to take your seat.
Mr.. Montgomery-As to what may have
been told DIR. Stebbins, don't regard him as
of absolute veracity as MIR. Foote does. The
jury has not been permitted to know what
Mrs. Schroder's esimony was, by the de-
tense and the ruling of the Court.
The Court-You could better talk to the
jury.
Mr. Montgomery-I'll do it, if your Honor
will only stick to your rulings think this
is foul murder, and foul means are even
played to cover it up. Schroeder and wife
have had conversation in the bed-chamber,
and the jury has never been permitted to
know what it was. The commencement of
their trouble was their bill of $50. 1t
is in evidence that it was a debt
Of two years standing. Schroeder was
z Il
fast man. Mrs. Schroeder never charged DIR.
Lefevre with seduction-lnerely with i'm
proper conduct-and Schroeder, in telling DIR.
Stebbins of it, says that the doctor had at
tempted TO seduce his wife. Why did she
say so? Because there was a quarrel about
a dentist bill. In proof of this, when DIR.
Stebbins came over to Oakland the first
thing spoken of was that dentist bill. DIR.
Stebbins has shown a wonderful lack OF
memory. as evincsd by the most fragrant dis
crepancies in his testimony. / propose to
crack him as he deserves to be, and as
the community has right to have him
cracked. 1t is Unknown fact that Mrs.
Schroeder had child six months and twenty
days after her marriage. No brave man ever
beat his wife as Schroeder did. When Schro-
der and his wife consulted as to the alleged
seduction, it was for the purpose of levying
blackmail for that $50. Did Dr. Stebbins,
when he arrived at the doctors office. ask for
the man who seduced his daughter? No
but "Have you a bill against my son-in-
law You have seen intelligent ladies and
gentlemen, patrons of DIR. Lefevre, and from
that | ask you, Do you even think that such
an accusation can stand When the son-in-
law, with DIR. Stebbins, asked for
receipted bill, they did nothing more
than highwayman would have done.
1t was intended that the fuss should end with
the tender of a receipt IN full. This case has
all the marks of dastardly and cold
blooded murder. As to the plea of insanity,
an insane person cannot be divorced or per
suaded from his peculiar idea Schroeder was
persuaded to give up his pistol. He worked
at the bank not like an insane man, nor does
man use ordinary discretion in the ordinary
affairs of life. But where is proof of the
defendant not acting like rational being?
During the noon recess of the bank he pur
chases pistol, and thereafter returns to the
bank. As to the irresistible impulse with
which it is claimed the defendant was
actuated, it is strange that Sarah
Gallagher-on the hypothesis that the
impulse was irresistible she, an
ignorant servant girl, was the one person
to control him. This is an important case.
[ ask nothing for friendship, but [ do ask, in
all Justice and humanity, that you do not
turn out murderer upon the community and
thus allow man to go UNPUBLISHED who killed
one of the best citizens in the community.
If there were no children to protect, no
widow to provide for, then might leniency
be in order If Schroeder, because his wife
saws that she was seduced, takes it upon him
self to constitute a Judge and jury, let him
abide the consequences.
THE CLOSING ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENSE.
Mr.. McAllister then began the closing ar
al AZ, 10 rail Ia
men of the jury, | shall attempt to address
you without the malignity which character
lied the remarks of the gentleman who has
lust spoken. In his malignity he has not
spared witness, defendant nor the Judge
himself He has forgotten the honorable
profession OF which he is member, and bias
in his malignity forgotten the gentlemanh'
ness which should ever mark its members.
That is my view of his argument. / rejoice
to have jury. OF husbands and OF fathers.
Imagine, on May 18th, the defendant sur
rounded by his wife, children and everything
that enhances and supplies happy home,
near the woman whom he loved, whom he had
promised to hold to in sickness or in health,
tilldeath did them part. Imagine learning that
that woman was debauched, and had broken
allegiance to her marital vows. Aye, worse
than death, disgrace and dishonor fell thick
and fast. While justice is asked for the pros
widow and children, our sympathy does not
change the fault which attaches to his deeds
as an untrue husband and a false father The
gentleman lashes himself into rage and says
that my friend spoke disparagingly Of the
Roman Catholic Church. We never said
ANYTHING of the kind. He spoke of the de-
PENDANT nursing his anger for six months.
Was it not something more than mere anger
which attracted the attention of all his friends
l.. . L.. H.,
grew so strong that when he saw the miscre-
ant who had defled his home that it knew no
bounds, and eliminated in this tragedy. My
associate, in saying no jury would convict,
said truly, as exempli6ed by the verdict in
the Sickles and other cases.
Mr.. Montgomery-Ye but allow me to go
farther and state that in those cases there
was seduction proven and none in this.
Mr.. McA lister (resuming) When deceased
was asked whether he had seduced bIrs.
Schroeder he said nothing, which was equiva-
lent to an admission in writing. The very
act of Sarah Gallagher, in going to. DR..
Lefevre at night some thirty times, and dur
ing each of which he exhibited considerable
attention, and selected her as a confident in
this business, is a proof that her services
were needed. She could inform and post
him as to what was going on. As to
her hoping that she was not the cause
of the trouble, there was nothing more than
sympathy for his trouble. As to Sarsh's
memorizing her testimony, how would she go
through the cross examination with such fly
ing colors AS to the confession of Sarah
Gallagher, it does not follow that because the
priest failed to see her that she was not there,
for the reason that the confessionals are dark.
Despite the order of the Court, counsel
continued to argue that Mrs. Schroeder was
not called for fear that something would be
disclosed The reason of her non-appear-
ance is that the lady has suffered enough al
ready without dragging her into Court to I'M
dergo the cross-examination of one of the
counsel on the other side, and the defendant
choosing rather to able by your verdict than
submit his wife to the indignities which / am
sure she would have received.
Mr.. McAllister continued at considerable
length, and on the conclusion of his argument
the Court adjourned until tomorrow morn
ing at o'clock, when the argument for the
defense will be concluded by Mr.. McAllister,
to be followed by District Attorney Gibson
for the prosecution, when the case will be
given to the jury.
The Gotta Habeas Corpus Case-The Pris.
Oner in Court.
SAN Francisco, December 9th.-The Mex
lean Consul, Joaquin Garcia Condo, brought
the prisoner, Gotta, at few minutes before
IL o'clock last night, into the city prison, ac-
companied by police officer Rank, and de-