Omaha daily bee., 1884-08-16

Persons who had seen the prisoner OF
the day of the murder, at a distanc,
from the scene of 1t, deposed to the colo
and the texture of the clothes worn b,
him. A boy who had heard the shots
saw a man of the prisoners height
wearing such clothes as had been de
scribed, cross over a fence and 90 of
through the fields. a few minutes after
the firing. This boy indicated the di
rection in which the man went, and his
statement was borne out by a gentleman
who met the prisoner at a time and place
which he could have reached, according
to the theory of the Crown, after com
plotting the crime.
And now for the motive. Why should
this young man take the life of that
foreign gentleman? And with such fer
ocius brutality, too2 The prosecution
had the answer, which, on hundreds oil
similar occasions, had been given to 8
like question in this very courthouse,
He had been evicted from his farm. The
murdered man had evicted him and his
family, and that, said the Crown, was the
cause of the murder. No man could In.
dictate any other ground for hostility tc
him, such deadly hostility, too, as could
| only be satisfied with his blood. And sc
the Crown left the case to the jury. ii
seemed complete enough.
''If they do not convict, they cannot
acquit him." whispered a voice near me.
"Well. then, they won't convict him.
said another voice, ''for there is more
than one man in that box afraid of get
ting a hole through his own skin"
This latter view / heard %canvassed in
many ways by persons specializing on
what the verdict would be. There were
many, especially among the agricultural
element, who attached no Importance to
any other aspact of the case, and who
spoke as it, considered from this point, a
verdict of guilty was out of the question.
Now came the time for the defence. 1t
consisted of two branches. One wa an
assumption that the principal witness for
the crown was perjuring himself, and the
other was an attempt TO establish an
abb. The speech for the prisoner, by
his wonderful advocate, was mainly de-
voted to the first part of the defence.
His task was to make it, if he could, i'm
possible for the jury to convict on the
evidence of Woodlock; not because it was
a case of mistaken identity; not because
there was any doubt of his being where
he was on the day of the murder. 1t was
admitted that he saw two men in con-
verse, as described by him. 1t was ad-
mitted that he heard the shots and saw
the smoke, and then saw the murderer
cross over the fence and move away
through tho fields. But it was not only
denied that Halloran was the man, but
it was imputed that Woodlock, with
fendish ~malignity, selected him, for pur.
poses of his own, as the easiest VICTIM.
There was against him what there was
against no other. In his case was the
terrible motive of eviction, a motive
which had been sanctioned as sufficient
by scores of convictions in like cases, and
so Woodlock, like an old fox, with cruel
cunning, selected him, and was now try
ing to walk over his dead body to atilu-
ence.
The speech for the defence was worthy
of the man who delivered it. In matter
and in manner it was perfect. 1t suited
the occasion, and times, and the temper of
the people. With irresistible force and
marvellous keenness it assailed the weak
point of the prosecution. There was no
incident, no matter how trivial, which
could bear q favorable construction for
the prisoner r help to throw discredit on
the Crown witness, which was not siezed
at the proper time, and with dramatic
effect, and placed before the jury in a
light so bright and clear that mental Wis
ion should have altogether left the box if
they failed to see. The voice was
not pitched in a high key. The leading
tone was one of scorn for the witness, and
incredulity that he could, by possibility,
be credited by a single individual. No
doubt the sympathy of the majority of
his hearers went with the orator. But
even those who did not sympathize with
his efforts were spell bound by the magic
effect of his earnestness and his genius.
II was clear that there was no resource at
at his command that he would 0 use to
keep the rope from the neck of the man
whose life was now in his hands. The
newspaper report of the proceedings at
the inquest, in which, as before stated,
Woodlock was represented as saying that
he did not know the man who was speak
lug to the unfortunate Frenchman, was
handled with startling power. The paper
was the organ of the conservative and
landlord party in the district, The ClJn-
mel Chronicle. The gentleman who made
the report was well known and respected
in the locality. Did he invent all this
for the purpose of subsequently
mountaineering, in his effort to hang an
innocent man, Woodlock, the contami-
mated perjurer, they had seen writing
before them on the table? Could he
know months ago what was to happen
here to-day, and so, out of a spirit of
pure ~malignity to this amiable instru-
ment of the crown, attribute to him
words which placed him in his present
pitiable predicament? Absurd assump-
ton! The pressman went to the inquest
to do his duty-he did it. He reported
what was said, and there it was-litera
scripta manet-and the crown and all the
force of the law would find that no
amount of swearing, even on the part of
the scrupulous and model pet of the
prosecution, Woodlock, would wipe out
these letters, or remove their effect from
the minds of the twelve gentlemen he
had the honor to address. His was no
special pleading to get off by an %artitice a
man whom all believed to be a murderer.
He would, among other witnesses, pro-
duce the gentleman who made that re-
port; and he would ask them, when he
had given his evidence, and told them
that Woodlock swore at the inquest that
he did not know who the man was whom
he saw speaking to Thiebault-he would
ask them to place the oath of this GENTLE