, 1881-02-06
HULTGREN'S CASE.
Arguments by Mr.. SWEET and
State's.Attorney Mills.

STATE "Aftorney Mills.
The Jury Still 0ut-Probability Of a
- Disagreement.
The Hultgren murder case was resumed In
the Criminal Court yesterday morning, in the
presence Of a large audience.
| MIR. sWETT
continued his argument to the Jury in behalf Of
| the defendant. Taking up tho question Of the
raezor. he said it might be argued that the blood
| had been washed oil, because none had been
! found upon it. Hultgren was not that kind Of
| man, for he appeared before tho jury with a
character for carelesness. The fact that he had
been with Johansen was not a eliminating but
natural circumstance. They had lived and
worked together for years, ana were intimate
friends The fact that the prisoner was found
in possession, afsor tho murder, Of IL S5-bill be-
fore owned BY Johanscn amounted to nothing.
| A young man had identified the bill as having
been paid tho deceased, but simply by
] tie patch upon its back He had
no doubta similar bill ind been paid the mur-
dered man, but did not bellevc this circumstance
at all eliminating, or going to fasten the crime
! upon tho prisoner. Suppose, for instu0cc, he
| said, that Hultgren hud been found dead, and
| the patched bill had been found upon Ander-
] dcrer2 II euch circumstances would convict q
| person, he wanted the jury to understand that
! every time any one Of tham took Il patched bill
| he did it In the shadow of the gullows. Hc did
| not believe, however, that the bill had been
sufficiently Identified though it had been sworn
| to. Certainly. it was not as strong circunstan-
tiuJ evidence, III any event, US the weakest pos
| sble direct evidence. aud consequently did not
! and could not come under tho rule OF law.
| Then there WAS In the favor Of the prisoner
his own testimony on tile subject With
tho gallows standing before him. and bis
! life apparently hiuging upon that patched bill.
| he told the truth, and refused to fabricatc
story He could baye said that he had loaned
tho deceased IS, and that the bill In question had
been paid hin, as explaining how be came by it,
but he did not do it, tor which he deserved
credit The fact that the prisoner was il,
UNABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR Ills WHERE
ABOUTS
between and II o'clock the night Of the mur-
der was nothing remarkable, lit certainly did
not convict him OF tho crime. It was not his
duty to prove where ha wus. but the duty Of tho
prosecution, which they hnd futlcd to do They
had not shown that be was at the pond where
tho body was found, nor that he had anything 10
do with tho murder.
Mr. SWEET next proceeded to review the cr!na-
| mating circumstances discussed, maintaining
their insutEiciency, and took up what nc
called "cxcu!pafory facts arguing that
1t was highly Improbable, If not i'm
possible, that his client should have committed
the murder. He did not believe the mans life
hid been taken ut the pond, Tor tho idea was ln-
consistent with tho theory that his body had
been taken to th9 pond tp to- oe seeresed. sa1 Iho
but the body was not found there. and TIC lue.t
was ridiculous tint the killing occurred l1l thaf
been done in the city, aud TINT tie body was
tnken 10 the pon'l to bo hid, and shst II mistake
was made III taSing It 70 sh,.liow water. VT ThGn'
and none could he. No one knew bu, it occurred
ut midnight while the prisoner was sleeping OF
the prosecution, very naturally, thnt Johanscn
bad bccn killed for tho $40 he was supposed to
haye had on bis p;fson rue jury well know; be
from the flct thut II Hut3rc:, had wanted
the money be could have borrowed It from
soaT s 3aes smn @ that tte
friends, and the good character OF HultgTen was
in his favor. 1t was true that the prosecution
hid stolen Or made way. with q bOua of recon-
ucndatious from the prisoners employers, but
lis good character had been established.
In a se speaker sia up9b 1e
they convicted tiultgren that hts spirit would
return to haunt theru. He believed thtt he was
innocent og tiio crime, and left the case with
them and Sod.
sTATE's-ArToRSEY MILLS
followed with the closing argument for the pf,s-
ecution. The eounse! for 1ite defense, he said.
WINS sorry for him, and could reply by saying that
he knew his clients. He h.,d spent his years
with teis pcopfe OF Cnicago who we're big clients
and he knew then, and loved them. He knew
also the dangers which cnvfconed them. and the
llecessity OF the enforcement Of I'LL llw against
The cri,1inal classes. Whether the, CRIME was
burglary, murder, OR any other. the assault WIS
not limited TO tho Immediate yiCtl!n, but 1t was
upon the people at large. Tie defenders OF
lwc.t upon tho vlgor, zeal. and ardor Of the
prosecution. and This case had been no eScep-
lion, He bud been elected to do what he
he had sworn to do his duty Against the pris-
oner he could have no ILL will l4o had never
killed his SON, or interfercd with him. bur be bad
violuted the rights OF hurnnn nature, and this
nil he had aHsln5t him. He was called upon,
however, to nssst the jury in determining
der OF Johanscn, and this he proposed.to do,
Hc then rcud from authorities on the question
show that In tho abstract it might not be as
strong us positive evidence. but IN the concrete
1t was often stronger. All evidence, he said,
Was circumssantial, aud Juror was NOT ut lib
erty TO dishelieve as slch and believe as nun.
Crcu1nstantinl evidence was lcgni and the au
thorities h.d seemed to anticipate the defense in
it was unsafe to convict upon circu1nsrant!ui
evidence, but the purpose had been to frichieD
tho jury and keep thun from, doing their duty. |
They bud before them, however, certain facts,
and these were to be USED us tnfcrcnces, the |
tho contrary notwit1 t1standine. Take one fact,
for instance, and the jury had to inquire first |
OF its existence and next OF its sIgniheunce, but
before coming to II conclusion would have to !
group all Of the other facts In the case with it.
Take tho fact of
TIE PATCHED BILL,
and it appeared as Johansens property. but |
after his murder and tho hndtuR OF 1t on Hult |
greu the scene was changed, which illustrated |
the necessity OF considering every fact III corr
ncction with tho matter. Then there was the !
razor. Placing 1t upon the table amounted to |
nothing, but When il was put into the hands OF !
a man near the body Ut the dead u.un, with his
throat cut, hr thought there was something In !
the circumstances quite significant.
The speaker next adverted to the fucts In the !
case. Tho prisoner nud murdered hAd
lived together, and came to this cnt,utry to- !
gether, hut there was no EVIDENCE going To show
that they were any more than ucquaintAnccs. |
They had bourdcd together few weeks, it WIS |
true, but this WIS all thert. was to it. They were
not dear friends. or else why did they separate |
In work and bonrdinE? The evidence showed |
that Johnnsen had been Ill Industrious, honest |
softer man, but 1t was not ST. with the prisoner, /
who had been spAsnodtc lahorer, and /, squan-
dCrer OF bis meAgre earnings on q vicious appe-
tite. According to Hultgren's own evidence, be |
hud
SPENT As MUCH FOR DRINK AS he Had |
FOH Bl:E4AD+
The dafrnca hrd ar,r11aI thnf 1nhorcar nod