Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-06-29


talked about everything but the facts in n.
case; every effort had been made to misleaC
and cover up the facts and put you on falls
| trail. The learned counsel for the defenss
| Colonel CAN'T had spun web after web anC
fancy sketch after fancy sketch about tn,
innocence of his client, telling you that i
was. useless for you to pursue your investiga
tiors further, and that you must take it fol-
granted that his client was innocent. II wal
an unpleasant duty for jury to pronounce
a sentence of guilty upon a man, but it il
their duty, and they have no right TO disre
gard that duty if the facts warrant it. We
expect to show you that the conceded facts
in this case warrant conviction, and thai
they alone are sufficient to prove his guilt.
General Wright here went into an ex
haustiye analysis of the facts of the case, al
corrobsrated by witnesses, and defended
Shouse, Darling and Lowenstein in theil
evidence, the main points of which hav;
been heretofore covered by counsel
In speaking OF the evidence of Mrs. Burke
General Wright said: Mrs. Burke had SAID
that Darling had a conversation with her
told her he was the man who had beer
watching him Mundinger) for two years
and had now caught him. Darling saws b,
did not say two years. Darling might hav,
conceded att that, and still his testimony
would not have been impeached. Mrs
Burke at the time was engaged in criticisms
upon the gentleman anything but polite, no
to put too fine point upon it, and nigh
have been mistaken in what she heard. She
is as thoroughly partisan of the defendan
as anybody here, lady, / grant you, but
only human being, and therefore her mem
Org is as liable 10 be defective as Shouse's
Besides all the attending circumstances cor
roborate Shouse. Facts bristle all along thii
line OF proof, he said, which you cannot ig
more. / repeat, is there any doubt that the
defendant drew the money? This is the MAR
point; the pivotal point in this case. Why
:sli about Darling? Why talk about
Shouse, when you admit, when your client
admits that he drew the money. And as to
these assaults upon the Lowensteins, what
does that mean? 1t is said that they have
an interest in this case. Is there any proof
of it. When men intend to ruin another
there is some power, some motive behind it
Is it not SO? The meanest.wretch that walks
the streets would not wautonly ipjure his
fellow man. He must have a motive. What
then, was the motive in this case? Why did
the Lowensteins and Shouse want to get rid
of him. He was good business man, and
a popular man. The ladies clustered al
the store around him, and the children
cried for him. Then why should the Low
ensteins want to get rid of him? Is that the
way business men do things? Mol You
see all this trumpery is brought out to try
and hide the real facts at issue. 1t is not
denied that Mundinger made out the check
drew the money and put it in his pocket.
The whole case is this: What was his mo-
tive? If he got the money to refund to Sim
mott, then he is innocent; if not, then he is
guilty. Now, as to the statement OF the de-
PENDANT. He drew the money in the even
ing. Sinnott returned the bracelets in the
morning. How did he know they would be
returned? Ali gentlemen, all of these little
subterfuges are the trail of the serpent. The
bracelets were bought from Darling. Mum
diuger returned the money without saying
anything to Darling about il. How did he
know anything about the bracelets? How
did he know that they cost So so? They
might have cost only 81 so fer all he knew.
He says he took Sinnott's word for it. Is
this busiuess-like? Who is this Sinnott that
his simple word will be taken in matter of
this kind? Mundinger tells you he made
out a check and returned the money to Mrs.
French. He brings man named Sinnott,
who tells you he bought them for
Miss Mendelsohn. How do you rec
oncile these two statements? Of course
you can say he is not guilty, gentle
men of the jury; you can shut your eyes to
facts, but tell you the transaction, even be-
fore you get to Sinnott, bears upon its face
the impress of fraud. Darling tells you as
a m after of fact that no bracelets were sold /;
that the stock had run down during the holt
days, and he knew what he had on hand;
that he connted them daily because he sus-
pected Mundinger. Mr.. Proudit, the
tells you that the books don't show
that any bracelets were sold at that time,
and that they would have shown it had any
such sale taken place. What is the defense?
You have Mundinger's statement that he
drew the money, that he gave it to Sinnott.
He comedies that. Now, gentlemen, if that
is fabricated evidence, then out of his own
mouth he is convicted. Now, as to this
man Sinnott Is he reputable man? Do
you believe one word tn; he said on the
witness stand? There are many ways
Of breaking down a witness. He
has been broken down in every
hing. His very manner destroyed him.
You saw how the miserable wretch squirmed
On the stand under examination; he contra
iicted himself; he said he only took an ordI-
nary interest in the case. Was trying to cor
rupt the sworn officers of the law only an
ordinary interest? His handwriting was con-
radicted by two reputable men; four or five
,wore that they would not believe him on
path in court of justice, and that he is a
.ascal? What do you say about that man?
Take his evidence, for instance. He can
rive you no reason for his buying the brace
cts as a present for lady and then sud-
lenly changing his mind. He never said
lnytbing about it for two or three months,
md then only when Mundinger met him on
he street and asked him if he had not re-
urned certain goods. Who is this man?
What is he? II is so ordered in the divine
that all must work for their daily
,read What does he do? A stranger to
ionest labor. L venture the assertion that he
las not burst into perspiration within the
asst ten years until he did SO on that
under the fire OF his own
perjury being exposed on
he examination. Sometimes he works
or Dan O'Leary, snd for two or three days
vas engaged 10 guarding a millinery store.
What do you call such men? In common
,arlance he is a called a tramp. He is just
UGH a man as the defendant would seek to
10 his dirty work and aid him in a case of
his kind. Colonel Williamson has said
hat his action in approaching deputy
herifs with lists OF men to be summoned as
jurors was no crime. What a comment on
ur boosted civilization Has it come to
his that men like Sinnott can select the men
rho are 10 decide on the life and liberties of
ur citizens? A beautiful spectacle, indeed;
man utterly without character furnishing
lists OF men TO be summoned on iuries to the
worn officers of the law. Who gave him
nat list? Did Sinnott tell you who gave it
} him? No. He says he don't remember.
lie could remember what he was
Ding on Adams street, and what |
g went there for-to get a drink |
ut then a sudden hiatus came over
is memory, and he don't remember |
no gave it TO him. This good man, SO |
nxious that justice may not be defeated by |
le bold, bad Lowensteins, Gays he APP |
reached John Powell, deputy-sheriff, and |
anded him little list on printing paper.
owel says it was on folded piece of letter
aper. Asked if he approached any other
equity, he denied it. Thomas Garvey, an
Their deputy, swears that he approached |
i'm, not once, but twice; once with list
nd once with a man whom he wanted sum-
loned. A fine spectacle, truly. Where are
e drifting to? ask you, gentlemen OF the
Try, and / see some among you whose heads
re silvered over, If you ever, in all your rec
lection, heard of more brazen or impudent
tempt to pack jury than that here pre-
nted by this impudent. No country, no
eople, can survive the corruption of the
dietary. You are the most important fac
IT in that Judiciary, and bad man foisted
ito the jury-box pollutes the very fountain
Justice. / have the list here which this
erson made out. have no desire to read
There are good men upon the list, and |
e one of the names on it in the jury-box. /
} not believe he knew he was on the list, and
only shows how degraded, how low, Sim
Dit is when he would use good name
r such purpose. Who instigated Sinnott
his scheme of manufacturing juries?
Tho is the motive power behind this Sim
ii? 1t must be man who has great inter-
It's at stake. 1t has been told you by Ken
,dy, and coIroborated by Sinnott, that they
dundinger and Sinnott) had been looking
n