Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1882-02-02
.coLE-HARMoN TRAGEDY
The Defense.


Geo. W. Darst, VIM. IT.. Martin. John d. Cessna
Hoyt, James Robinson, WIN. II. Russell and JohI
Smith, all Of Hardin county.
The evidence adduced from the examination o
these witnesses was to the effect that far thei
knowledge was concerned the defendants reputation
for being peaceable and quiet citizen was good
that his character was good; that this was true o
him both as private citizen aud a soldier. Wit
but one or two exceptions all of the above wtnesse
had known but little Of the defendant since his re
moval from Hardin county, some seven or eigh
years ago, which was about the only point brough
out in the cross-examinstion, which was conducte'
by Mr.. Stephenson.
JOSEPH HOLMES
was the next witness placed upon the stand; resid
in Deshler; have been merchandising there for MIN
years past have known Cole ever since he cant
there in "a; have known him Intimately have seeI
him about every day; his character and reputation
have been good; know his wife; knew John Har
mon; they lived close together.
The question was asked "Do you know ofany in
timacy between Coles wife and Harmon?' to which
the prosecution objected. The court said that hi
would hear Mr.. Tyler, when the prosecution asked
that the jury be withdrawn during the time the
question was being argued.
To this the defese objected but the objection wal
overruled The defense took exception to the
ruling The Jury having been withdrawn, Mr. Tyler
proceeded to speak in support of his question. He
expressed himself as surprised that he should bt
compelled to argue question of this kind, but
20 do 70 tIyC
hours he addressed the court, making an able argu
ment in support Of the question, and backing up al
he said by citing numerous authorities.
He was followed by Mr.. Knupp, who. spoke fol
thirty minutes, and by Mr.. Stephenson who spoke
for about twenty minutes. Both of these gentle
men showed they had prepared themselves to meet
just such an emergency and very ably supported
their objection.
Mr. Tyler closed the argument in mastery man
ner. Heseemed to forget himself in his subject and
made noble plea for his client. He pleaded that il
error was to be committed that it be on the side Of
mercy. He showed how the prosecution had estab
lished beyond the possibility of doubt that Har
mon had met his death at the hands of Cole. This
the defense had admitted from the outset, aud now
should the Court sustain the objection of the prose
cution it would leave the defense powerless. Th'
whole matter said he, hinges upon this simple ques
ton, "Was Cole wronged man7 Had he suffered
injury at the hands OF Harmon?" The defense
were able to prove that such was the case The.
were able to prove that Harmon was
THE sEDUCER OF COLES WIFE.
that he had ruined Coles home and happiness; tina
while the defendant had had ntimations of this fact
it was not until the day of the shooting that he hat
learned the whole truth; that he was thereby driver
to take the life of the despoiler of his home If tn
Court should rule to exclude this testimony, wha
more could be done for his client? 1t was the on
way they had of showing thathe had an object il
killing Harmon if they were not permitted to sho'
this all that remained was for the jury to bring hin
In guilty of murder in the first degree and for tn
Sheriff to take him out and hang him. Z.
The Court took the matter under adyisement
Thursday morning Judge Moore rendered his dc
"The question arises as to the competency of cer
tain evidence sought to be introduced by defendant
the evidence of improper relations existing betweei
the deceased, (Harmon) and the wife Of tn
defendant at times prior to the alleged killing Thi
evidence Is not offered by way of Justification and
is not in any sense of the term, and cannot be ad
mitted for that purpose. No person can take 1t o.
himself TO avenge his own wrongs whether real o
imaginary. There is no quasi anything in la,
which amounts to nearly classification as claimed b
counsel. Evidence of this kind cannot be intro
duced nor cannot be used for this purpose. If
was offered to justify the court would have no hes
fancy in determining its incompetency,
'sThe purpose claimed by counsel principally
that the defense set up to this charge Of homicide
that the defendant at the time of this act insan
and incapable of exercising his reasoning facultie
to the extent of knowing right from wrone
especially with reference to the act il
self These things sought to be proven by defen6
ant, of instances of improper relations existing bt
tween deceased and the wife of the defendant wcr
brought to the knowledge of the defendant and ope
ated ON his mind exciting cause, producing il
sanity The fact that the deceased and the wife G
the defendant had improper relations with each otf
or to speak more plainly, aduterous intercourse
would have tendency to prove the insanity of th
defendant, and the question then comes back to III
If at from time to time he had knowledge of thes
relations, it would in any way tend to be
| producing cause ofinsanity.
"In cases where insanity is claimed to exist an
made part of the Defense the party has right t
put in evidence as proof of the insanity of bloc
relations, for instance, father mother brother
sister That of itself would not prove insanity in t
| defendant. 1t would be q factor, any other fac
towards proving insanity, but unless actual insani
| was proven the mere fact that relative prove
insane would notbe sufficient. The question then
| whether this exciting cause might effect the mind
| dwelt upon, and could be offered in evidence stf
same the other 1t is not the question that thes
&C ts were committed, but whether the defendai
had knowledge which had an effect on his mind.
''Lookiug at those things which we have rulings
| the court upon have come to the conclusion thi
| the evidence of that knowledge of the defendant
| to the improper relations existing between the d
ceased and the wife of the defendant, may be give
in evidence. will limit the testimony to the know
edge of the defendant of these improper relations,
effect
To the decision the defendant took an exception.
MR.. JOSEPH HOLMES WAS RECALLED
by the defense and testified as follows: During Il
last year of Harmon's life Cole was around the TOW
part of the time; the town : Is about 800 inhat
tants he was generally around town every day
| was there.
Witness was asked If he had ever had o convers
ton with Harmon as to his intimacy with Mrs. Col
This question was objected to and the objection sti
tanned The witness was then told to stand aside.
PETER D. CoLK,
the defendant, was then placed OH the stand, al
testified as follows: Am the defendant in this cas-
was married to Mrs. Cole in Sandusky Wyand
county, Ohio. fourteen years ago last fall, maybe
teen my little girl was born in the spring Of 181
went to live in Deshler seven years ago last 0ctobe
Harmon came there about six weeks after l di
when he first came there he bought lot next to n
and about three months later moved his family on t
at first we were on very good terms for about Fl
years; had mistrusted that he was taking too maj
liberties with my wife, and that changed the feelin
between us that was about two years before t
shooting; Mrs. Cole remarked to friend of ou
who was in the house, that she going to Forres
that was two years ago last August or September -
said she was going up there within one week; a
she made remark that Mrs. Harmon was nifty
her, being jealous; said l, "Katie, you hadn't bet
tell that 1t might get out among the neighbors a.
raise some talk She said, "Oh, she, Mrs. Cc
won't say anything about it, She went to FORE
but not as soon as she had intended; something 8
said set me TO watching her; she gone to For,
about three weeks; by her actions that morning
thought there was something wrong; she would
take trunk that morning, but took rather lar
valise; went down town to see where Harmon WI
!, thought he was going with her; saw him dr.
out with two horse carriage and drive south W.
back home and Mrs. Cole was about ready to ia
the train; she did take the south bound train; II
mon was away two days: noticed his absence:
/ the depot that morning tried to purchase ucl
her and get her valise checkedto to Forrest VIII
j she said she was going but she wouldn't let me;
kept me there until the train pulled out; had
: tended to follow her but was thus prevented;
Q was gone three weeks while she was away she '
writing TO John Harmon; I saw the letter put into
box recognized the handwriting on the supersci
ton of that letter; did not learn its contents; 1t
4 | possibly week after she left; the letter was
= = dressed to Mr.. John Harmon; there was no ot
l John Harmon in the town to my knowledge;
. letter was postmarked Forrest: he afterwards 60