The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1880-09-01

4
thai he told rseandcontalic,ory stories
as to when be saw her, ALLEGING that he had
not seen her from early that morning until
he found her dead and contradictory state
ments as to how long Philip was there. and
other contradictions that you have heard
urged by the e1unsel They sllase then g.
anuilierre.f .Gti thar b.. naii,e tei ess itenicni
when he was . the ,liuncr t;tl,lcui his sons,
and that lac III his pipe and moved about
and showed an unusual degree of excite
ment; they urge that his request to cut her
down when he went up and his request
that no inques; should be held. were obvi-
ously as they claim, Circumstances indiea-
ting guilty mind that he didn't want 4
jury, that he wanted her cut down iInlne-
diately, as they urge in their argument be-
cause lac thought fewer persons would have
seen just how she was and they urge that
he wanted her buried in the field as a sui
eide and that he manifested indifference by
feeding his chickens, scolded several times
about his wifcs conduct and that when the
woman was laying her out on Monday al
ternoOn, he walked around. looked in and
laughed saveexprcssion, aswas testified, toa
la, ha All this conduct on his part, a they
allese, are circumstances tending to make
up the chain showing guilt on his part;
then they allege tia. in addition to the CON
Trajectory statements already mentioned, he
made other contradictory statements at the
jail to certain persons whose names you will
remember that he told Benedict Yodcr
and Josiah Zertoss. and believe one OF two
others-made certain statements with rc-
gard to this matter that were contradictel
by what he had said before. That he in fact
at different times suggested three different
theories: one that it was suicide another,
that it was tramps another, chat it was
done by Dave Cover and that another time
he made a declaration which indicated that
he himself assumed the responsibility, and
declared with regard 10 the hammer that it
was his hammer that did H. but he did not
iniiict the blow; and that he declared to
another party That il had come upon him
and he accepted it. The suggestion of the
defendant Is that he said, Il am going 10
bear what has come upon me" 1t has
come upon me and must bear /, not
meaning thereby to make any admission az
all.
/ 1t Is for YOU To determine; you have
heard the arguments of counsel on both
sides and these alleged admissions decia-
rations and contradictions, and we have
only to say in that connection TO you that
as a matter Of law great weight ought not
/ to be attached 10 what party is supposed
| TO have said. as it frequently happens not
onlv that the witness has misunderstood
what the party said. but the uninrentional
omission OF q word or arrangement OF q
word gives a different >ignihcation to it.
Vow. on the part Of the defense. It Is al
/ lesed ~ "a circumstance in this case thai
there was 40 blood found ON his clothing
that he wore the same clothes on Sunday
morning. sunday noon. and sunday even
ing, and on Monday az the time Of the in
I quest: tina, the bureau drawers were exam
ined. thai the girl testified toall the shirts
that he hal that Mr.. Gardill and Others
opened the drawers. examined and found
all the underclothing that it Is shown this
man had. and that no blood was found al
ter 4 careful search upon any of his gar
meuts. The Argument in reply othis is
that if the blow wa- inflicted from behind
lifhe came upon her from behind, felled
her 10 the ground and stood over her and
struck her on the other side Of the head
with the hammer. ne would NOS &c bloody
and tina, in a few minutes from such 9
wound as the physicians testify to, the
squirting of blood would be over, and then
he might put this rope around her neck, iii
her head @ little bit, and tic it 20 the joist
and tina. ia doing that he would not get ans
blood upon him: and there j. not much 10
the argument of the defense that there va;
no blood found upon his clothing. 1t !, foi
Won To determine We are stating what la.
been urged by both sides; and the fac- thai
there was no blood upon MS clothing seem.
to be sufficiently clearly proved How
much weight j. 70 De given T. that on on,
side or the other you viii determine. II
recarI 70 Tai, being q: his own home II j.
ur-ed hy the counsel for the defence that h'
had q right to bethere and this should u0t b,
considered q suspicious circumstance; an,
that he had a spell Of sickness thar day al,
and was up stairs in the room above, when,
he went u De away from the fies and OF
the Other hand IL i urged that II she Wa
, killed by somebody else and he was within
hearing distance and the other house wa
within hearing distance, if tramf> ha,
: come 10 kill her and she had got yier O
them I'm the first instance. il is quite prlba
{ bic she would have made an alarm; ans
the defendant urges also that there was n,
, concealment Of the hammer, that j. th.
. hammer with which the prosecution say
the offence was committed and upon whic.
they say there was blood and thai il laid IL
/. open view IN The shop. and they also al
, lere that the Commonwealth motive Is no
. sufficient that there was an old grudse ant
, that hi, property Is not very large and
. i therefore not likely q man would kill hi
wife simply because they lived inharnoni
t ously. or because She had some propert-
= which he would inherit They say th
! commonwealth proves no distinct instane
r ola threat: that this threat which the Com
. monwealth claims as testified 10 by Flick
: niger, this declaration about inhicting
-'kuicker1 was simply with reference Z
that particular occasion. that j.. If she ha,ln
, got ont Of the way he would have given he
, a 'knicker;' and they allese in refereno
/ to what he told the people in jail that hu
man memory Is very frail, and the chang
= of q word makes a great difference am
/ then urge his good character His goo.
I character for poace J. clearly proven, exeeI
, that he qriarreIe,l with his wife; sixteen @
{ seventeen witnesses testify that he /, . maj
of peare. and on cross-examination tell q
= NJ quarrels. no vindictiveness which h
r ever manifested. He i man u peaees.bl
I and euies habits. except some OF them sai'
= on cros,-ezaInination tiat they had learne
= ihat he livegl unhappily with his wife
= Vow. gentlemen. we have Hur-ielly rc
: viewed the evidence There i anothe
= theory br the defendant that is aryueli wit.
some force. that there are circumstance O
suspicion aeainst David Cover, thar he ma,
p have done this. that he vas there about tei
i O'Clock in that Heishborhood and that d
t told BreSaker and his wife on Monday a
ne hastened over there u the scene Of TIL
: calamity. thar lie had seen Mr.. Hoffmal