Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-06-11


made speeches for the prosecution. There
is every probability that the jury in this
case will hang. About an hour in the mora
/ ing was consumed in hearing the evidence OF
! character witnesses.
Yesterdays DOINGS.
Mr.. Emmett Howard was introduced to
| prove the good character OF Cross. He had
/ known him Tor about fifteen years, and his
character was good. Mr.. Hunter Raine was
introduced to ffove the good character
| of Gross. Mr.. T. F. Ayers also swore to the
good character of Cross. DIR. K. c. Malone
also swore TO his good character. Mr.. VIM.
Dean testified to the character OF Merritt.
Mr.. George Rudisill testified TO the good
character OF Merritt Mr. Estes testified TO
the good character OF Merritt. This closed
the testimony.
MUNDINGER'S STATEMENT.
Mr. Mundinger, the defendant, at mis- re-
quest, was allowed to make the following
| statement:
GESTLENEN-I have no recollection OF the silk
| transaction, whatever, and if such a transaction
| took place, it was simply the exchange of goods
| returned by the woman. such transactions fire.
quenty took place in the house when goods were
other goods And as to the money which the
| woman handed me, if any money was handed me,
who came into the store and made purchases
! would not haye money enough to pay for them.
| would loan them small SUMS of money, say 81 or
81 and on returning to the store at other times
| they would hand me back the money, either at the
time OF returning to the store, or after making
/ purchases and that the money which was handed
me was simply my own money, and not Mr.. Low
| Ell her rightfully wrongfully, and if they had
/ corne TO me at the time would have
had an opportunity to make satisfactory
expIanat' ion. l could have, gone to the, bun:
| .dIe-UrapD.%r and he could have explained
! ths ,natfeer ] could have gone to the customer
s se le eanlo have explained it, With regard to
the spool floss my recollection is this; Mrs An
dersI5n came TO me desiring 10 get spool of floss
Il find the mum Der OF uOSS she
| wanted then told her that If she would give me
| the money would send out and get the floss for
! her and SEND If as directed She handed me the
| money. / sent out and got the spool OF noss ana
| nv rocket was the money which was handed me
| by Mrs. Anderson, and was her money. used
spool OF floss which afterward sent to the person
l for whom it was intended. had talnt recoliee-
/ ton when this matter came up tnat MS. Anuer,
called on Mrs. Anderson and asked ner II she had
purchased a spool OF floss from me that day She
told me she could not remember. as 1t was a long
time ago; but she would look over her orders, as
she frequently received orders or filed such orders
as that She then looked over her letters and
found this letter bearing date at the very time
that this transaction took place At least the let
the very day that the transaction took place, and
, with this letter. also, she found postal card,
satisfied that this transaction the one which
took place that day. And would say this, that
for an explanation could have easily explained
it then, and Mrs. Anderson herself would have
remembered ~ ~ INT eAiiiS+
THE OPENING SPEECH.
Mr. Lehman made the opening speech for
the State. He read the law in the case,
which fixed the punishment at from five TO
twenty years. The first question for the
jury to decide was whether the defendant
were guilty or not. Then comes the ques-
ton of punishment. The testimony estab-
fishes beyond peradventure that the defend
ant is guilty, unless you believe that the evil
dence is untrue. One credible witness is
sufficient to convict, but here you have the
sworn statements of two witnesses to the fact.
When a man comes before you on the wit
ness stand you are bound to believe that he
is telling the truth unless he is successfully
impeached. The attorney read from seve-
raj authorities on the question OF reasonable
doubt Where the testimony ia clear pre-
vious good character is of no avail. There
was always time when distinguished Grim
inal had good character. We have intro
duced two witnesses to prove the act OF the
defendant, whom the defense has tried
to contradict. As far Mr.. Cross is
concerned, they only introduced one witness |
(Merritt) to contradict him, and this contra |
diction really amounts 10 nothing. After all, |
Merritt says Cross said he had caught Mum |
dinger in two suspicious transactions, but he |
had not actually seen him convert the money 1
to his own use. On the stand Cross narrated |
what those suspicious transactions were, and |
they turn out to have been criminal transac- |
tions. Merritt's contradiction was not to |
material fact, but to an outside conversation.
How easy it is in reporting conversation TO
change the entire meaning by the information
of the voice. You saw Mr.. Cross on the
stand; he bore himself as an honest man,
and you can't reasonably subject him TO crit
icism. Merritt, on the other hand, is par
tisan of Mundinger's; staid at his house, and
hunted evidence for him. Moreover, Merritt
HI ,aalf hnA 10 4 81, l.
had said to Captain Winn Cannon that Colo
mel CAN'T had made q mistake in not taking |
Newell on the jury, and he had winked at
Mundinger 10 take him. Captain Cannon
expressly states that Merritt did state this
So We start out with Merritt contradicted
instead OF Cross. Now ] have an idea that
the counsel will make a severe attack on |
Mr.. Patton. Yet he is corroborated by Mr..
Cross in all that he states. He bore himself
as gentleman on the stand; he comes 10
you with good character; he occupies
reputable position with a reputable house. |
There is no occasion for you 10 demand the
same kind OF character proof of him that you
10 from confessed criminal, who has to get
IN the stand himself to bolster up his case,
,y turning States evidence. Patton testifes
hat he saw Mundinger take this money and
appropriate it TO his own use. He remem-
,ers the date, because he made a memoran-
lum OF it and put it away. Furthermore,
Patton is borne out by Proud6t and his
BOOKS. These were examined and the checks
we're examined and found 10 correspond.
Besides that, Mr.. Proudfit found that his
ash was all right that day. The defendant
rot on this stand to make an explanation
lbout the spool of floss, but there is no proof
whatever that the silk Mrs. Anderson bought
lad anything 10 do with this transaction.
COLONEL T. E. EDGRGToN r-
r.. 1
ense. He said substantially to the Jury:
You will see that period Of six months
lspsed before this particular offense was
made public. This transaction, like good
vine, seems to grow better with age. Think
dr. Mundinger has amply set himself right
With you by the testimony of Mrs. Kellar An
lersoD, taken in connection with his own
tatement. Now we had 4 right to expect
higher line of evidence; and even If You be-
ieved every word said by the witnesses you .
re in duty bound to acquit him. You must !
70 by rthe preponderance OF the evidence
The speaker discussed at length the :
question OF reasonable doubt There !,
1ere 4 certain number of salary grab
ers in the house of 3. Lowenstein &
,ros. organized to get higher salaries
stood in their way. He stood e
hing that Mr.. Cross and Mr.. Patton agreed !
D well in their statements with each other
hey were too accurate, too consistent in u
hat they said. Evidently they had been II
talking together and comparing a
otes. Why, when they caught Mundinger l
id they not Immediately inform Mr.. Lowen- x
Elm of it as honest men? They say they
ere afraid of losing their situations. May 9,
OF the same duress be upon them now in q
,stifying in this case. The house of B. d
owenstein & Bros. did wrong in not sum- il
coming Mundinger before them and asking f.
i'm TO explain. Why did they ruin the /
ian who had been the pride and hope of his v
lmiIy. Daring the epidemic MuHdinger "
ent about on his errands of mercy. g
Judge Horrigan here interpolated-There h
no evidence Of that. al
Mr.. Edgington-Perhaps not. / thank Il
ou, gentlemen, for your attention in the r,
ise. oil
GENERAL LUKE WRIGHT | az
,oke for the prosecution substantially as b
Howe: Gentlemen of the jury-It Ia al d.
avs a matter Of grave Importance when d.
~ citizen is charged with the commission of v
great crime. 1t is important TO him, his h
lends, and society at large. Tn law of the h
nd, in view of the importance of that issue, OF
Ills from the body of the community men to h
Y a citizen of crime. The Judge is selected &C
.czuse of his high moral character and su- a