Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1881-09-29

sale of which he had been negotiating
that morning. About 5 O'Clock in
the afternoon he set out to return
home, taking the gun with him,
the trade having fallen through,
Stopping at the postofice a few min
utes to converse with friend, he saw
Rosters face peering out Of Hay
denis Office. 1t disappeared suddenly
and in moment reappeared in COM
pany with that Of Hayden. They
both came down to the sidewalk and
looked over at him, acting in such a
manner that he thought they were
jeering and haunting him. Maddened
by the actions of the parties, he
moved toward them, passed them, and
reaching distance Of about twenty
feet, he suddenly Hhirled around and
fred at Hayden, lodging the contents
of the weapon in his side. Death
followed in about fifteen minutes.
The town and surrounding country
were Immediately convulsed by
TERRIBLE EAC1TEM EMF,
Hayden's friends charging that the
killing was the result of a ring"
Cochran was indicted for murder.
The cause, by stipulation, was remov-
from Grand Rapids, to Neilsville, in
Clark county,. He was tried under
that stipulation, and on last Friday
morning the jury returned verdict of
mot guilty" The case was tried De-
fore Judge Newman, Of whose circuit
Clark county is part.
There are some peculiar features
connected with the legal proceeding
which make the case one of the most
remarkable on record. The Wiscon-
sin statutes require that wherever it
is claimed that the accused in any
criminal ofense is insane he must
plead it specially, and if he does not
plead it specially, no evidence can be
given on that point on the trial. If
he does plead it specially, and is beat
en- on the issue, the matters involved
in the plea shall not be considered.
Again: There is no provision either
in the constitution or the statutes of
the state of Wisconsin making the
jurors the judges of the law as we'll
as the facts, as in Illinois, New York,
and elsewhere. Because of these
pecuiiarities of the Wisconsin law the
defense was beset with many difficult
ties. On the trial the case was open
ed for the prosecution by Mr. Cottrell,
an eminent lawyer of Milwaukee.
The defense was under the management
of the Hon. Emery A. Storrs, of Chi
cage, with whom was associated the
Hon. Charles NJ. Webb and Mr..
Gardner, of Grand Rapids. The
opening for the plaintiff $ case, when
Mr.. Storrs addressed himself to the
task before him, and made such
AN EFFECTIVE PRESENTATION
of the case that the effect was MOTTO
able at every moment during the trial.
In his statement he recited all the
evidences of Mrs. Cochran's guilt in
detail, and put the issue upon the
broad ground that jurors treated all
cases of this character as questions of
conscience, and that no court could
very we'll prevent them from so doing
Previous to this time public opinion
had been setting toward Cochran, but
this gave it great impetus, noticing
which some of the counsel for the
prosecution became a little petulant
As matter of course, counsel for the
defense took due advantage of this,
and the public feeling increased in the
direction indicated until it was nearly
unanimous and very demonstrative.
Notwithstanding the strict rules of
order in court, Storrs' opening speech
was very loudly cheered.
The first difficulty encountered by
the defense in the trial of the case
was proving the effect which the
shock to the system of the defendant
had upon his nerves and his brain,
and his control over his own conduct.
The argument on this point occupied
more than day, and the result was
a victory for the defense In the admis-
sion of the evidence on the ground
that it might be legitimate as tending
to lower the grade of the defense.
In order, apparently, to Offset this,
the court excluded from the jury evil
dence offered of Hayden's boasts in
regard to other women. The court
also held that the fact of adultery was
imhaterial. and could not be shown.
Without going into to the details
of the long trial, when the evidence
was concluded,
Mr.. COTTRELL
opened on behalf of the people in an
able, but in some respects, injudicious
speech, because it divided publ C
opinion, and severely criticised
the ladies who were in attend
ance in large numbers. Mr.. Cottrell
was followed by Mr.. Storrs, in a clos
ing argument on the law of the case.
Mr.. Storrs claimed that the statute
was clearly invalid and unconstitution-
al, and he did this on the ground that
the condition of ones mind was an
essential in every case, as Indicating
the existance or non-eXistance of NAL
ice; that malice could never be pre-
sumed, and the result of that special
plea was to assume its existanoe; that
it shifted the burden from the state
to the defendant: that Ii vinlated the