Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-06-28

other things, he said that in the matter OF
the theft Of IS 80 the defense had made light
of the amount; that Mr.. Mundinger might
not have stolen the s. so for the sake of that
sum, but that ii was only a sample of similar
transactions, and that it must be taken as a
link in regular conspiracy for robbery.
He then reverted to the yellow-fever record
of Mundinger, and stated that because he
turned over certain moneys to Lowenstein
there was no evidence that he turned over
all; that was not under discussion; if ii was
it would be investigated, and, even admitting
that he did turn over all the money he was
responsible for, that did not give him the
right to rob his employers now. You must,
he said to the jury, try this case upon the
facts and the evidence before you, and moth
ing else. The prisoners statement is not evil
dence; he has, right to make a statement, but
nothing more; the prosecution could not cross
examine him, and therefore the statement was
only srgumentative, end must be taken only
for what it 10 worth. As to the evidence of
Darling, it had not been controverted; the
abuse which had been showered upon him
by counsel for the defense did not make him
bad man; and it would take something
more than the mere statement of counsel 10
break him down. As to Mr.. Kennedy, whom
the defense had also abused, he was detect
i've, and in the regular course of business
had come here to take part in this trial. He
did not come here to protect criminals, but
to show up corruption, which he had done
by showing up Sinnott's attempt to corrupt
justice and pollute the jurybox, which
should be kept clean, by approaching a
deputy sheriff and trying to get him to sum-
mon his pet jurors, and thus pack the jury.
Mr.. Lehman then entered into a defense of
the use of detectives in ferreting out crime,
aud said il was usual in criminal cases 10
employ them. He closed by calling upon
the jury to do their duty in the case.
Mr. R. C. WILLIAMSON,
for the defense, then addressed the jury. He
said he was not one of those men who
thought juries were wholly ignorant of all
questions of law, and that it was necessary
to explain all points of law to them. so he
would be brief. He said this was no ordi-
nary case; in fact, it was one of immense i'm
portance. Seemingly it appeared ON the
docket ss the State Us. @. Mundinger, but
really 1t was B. Lowenstein d Bros. rs. Chris
MundiDger. He then commented on the
number of attorneys employed by the prose-
cution. and also TO the employment Of the
Chicago detective, whom he characterized as
a spy. AS to the testimony of Messrs. Low
enstein, Shouse and Darling, taken any way
you would, il was bound to raise
question of reasonable doubt that you
could not get away from, and the
question of reasonable doubt must ex-
clude every other hypothesis except
the guilt of the prisoner. Darling and
Shouse, be said, were in the employ of Low
enstein, and were acting as tools for him.
Their testimony was also contradicted by
three creditable witnesses. He also paid
glowing tribute to Mundinger's yellow fever
record with the Lowensteins,.. and laid great
stress upon his actions at that time in proof
of his honesty. To try a man for his life or
liberty, be said, was a very serious thing,
and that in case of this kind the question
of reasonable doubt must outweigh all con-
siderations except actual guilt. He saw no
harm in Sinnott taking a list to deputy
sheriff, if he did so, which he denied, and
asking him to summon them as jurors, if
they were good men; there was nothing
criminal in that Mr.. Williamson was very
severe on Kennedy, the detective, through
out, referring to him as "thing," and seem
ing 10 think it was a great outrage that he
had been employed in the case.
AT the conclusion of Mr.. Williamson's
speech the court adjourned until $50 O'Clock
this morning.