The Somerset reporter., 1885-01-21
GUILTY
OF MURDER IN
THE SECOND
DEGREE E!
END OF J. FRANK WALKERS
SECOND TRIAL,
JUSTICE INDICATED AT LAST |!
JUSTICE INDICATED AT LAST

appreciation by his fellow citizens. The
day after the shooting affair at Emoden ne
was arrested aud Coroners jury said
that he was the cause of the death of Dag
gett. Two days later, two Justices OF the
Peace came to the same conclusion and
bound him over to the Supreme Court.
The grand inquest of the county examined
his case and said he was murderer aud
should be punished Twelve men heard
his case and said guilty of the killing but
could not agree upon the degree of guilt.
Twelve other men heard the case and said
guilty of murder In the second degree.
Yet he says he is not guilty and asks for
The Law court will next hear his case
but there is but little prospect OF their
disturbing the verdict rendered in the
case last Saturday.
The argument for the defense was made
by S. J. Walton, Esq, Friday afternoon.
Mr.. Walton spoke for nearly three hours
and urged the claims of his client most Wig
erously and ably. He spoke substantan-
TALLY as follows:
In behalf OF my client, who is on trial for his life,
thank you for the careful attention you have paid
In the trial OF this case, and ask your continued
attention while may sa iU6 % Se
ton Of the position taken by respondents council
and the facts understood by them 70 appear from
the evidence. And first let me suggest TO you that
In the consideration Of this case. freghted as is
with such momentous consequences To my client,
and Its importance TO the ,, c"mnn mn a. ,ArSs y"n
and also take into confederation the interest OF the
witnesses. both on the one side and the other; In
order that you may arrive at just conclusion and
one which In after years, as you look back to your
participation in this you will have no regrets
Tor what you have done here today The Indictment
In this case is MURDER tut under that indictment
you can render four verdicts against this young man
one for murder In the drs degree one for murder In
the second degree, one for manslaughter or one OF
not guilty.
Before Commencing the argument Of this case, al
low me to make few general remarks as to the po-
sion OF this case. The counsel for the State have
brough. In the little children OF Albert Dagyett the
man who WAS shot. ant parsded them day alter day
soSs s. sS' hsy the hss
their case. 1t has heen put In as evidence In this
case also that the wite Of Albert Daggctt AID The
mother OF these little children, died before Daggett
was shot For what purpose were these children
paraded there2 Was II not for the purpose OF e1cl.
ing your prejudice Hgsns this respanaaen pns, Is II
Daggett because he eft three little children? Is
Frank Walker to be blamed because the wife OF
Aeeri Dagse died leaving % sns'e aana w
with you. For il you allow such considerations 10
affect your Judgment and overcome your convlc.
tione your consciences will ever after remind you OF
that TACT and after years you cannot look BACK 10
your action in this case with the consciousness of
Let us look at another fact developed in this
There were seventeen of that gang summoned here
by the state TO testify as to what took place at D.
Frank Walkers on the night Of this occasion. The
County Attorney told you that all OF these parties
would be put upon the stand, SO that you might
judge what took place; and the County Attorney
fred outside that house that night. Two OF these
innocent serenaders, as the State sees At to call
they they not been csiledf What do they know about
what took place !hss tpa pig IN; \ Is Necessary
Ju.ea, aL., to keep from your consideratons In
case like this where the life or the liberty is a.
stake should not the government put before you OIL
ly of the guilt innocence OF this mani 10 II rlgh
is il lust that any evidence shall be kept from you!
ask you to Judge OF the case for the government
s YOU do Of The case for the respondent, and II you
nd either party keeping away from your considera-
tion any fact that may assist you In coming 10 u
correct conclusion, consider 1t against the party who
You are also to consider the interest of the wit
nesses who have testified DOM upon b .ae are
made up almost to u man OF those persons VINO were
at Walkers that night and their relatives. Ihey
from the charge that they resisted the law In what
they did there that night. We claim that the PROOF
fully shows that they wen d mere e as % raise
heT. and that they were guilty Of riot that might
and should be punished for 1t. Have you heard OF
tirnouy of Charles Getche the brother-in-aw OF j.
Frank Walker, 1t Is colored from beginning TO enc
against Walker He told you OF Marshal Honghtons
lille boy who was there that night and when he,
the little boy, went upon the witness stand, he
turned out 10 be young man 10 years old. LOOK at
the Testimony of the IS serenaders as government
terms them. as to what Daggett said concerning the
glass which they cay he picked up. Every mothers
son remembered his exact words and just what he
the biasphemous prayer that Wentworth made and
there deliberately lied about 1t, we believe THESE
Witnesses have their story made ~ .or tne occasion %
ed the citizens Of this county protected. 80 40 we
and when q man is at home in his own home, mind
on the night Of June nth last. he has right to
claim protection. The man who breaks the law Is
not the mau to claim protection. These pafues un-
der the excuse that they were going there 10 sere
made him had no right under that pretence to go TO
his house and make an assault upon him.
The government has attempted 10 SNOW 1, cu. ~"
tom In the town Of Embden, and you have doubIIess
heard time and time again that young Walker was
the leader in such performance. and most OF the
prejudice and feeling against his has been aroused
by that statement. IT.,
The government attempted to prove something Of
that sort and succeeded In showing that or years
ago when Walker was IA or Is years old be In com
pany with several young ladies or girls sctually
ried. Government claims that these parties were
invited. Do they spstain that positionf II they
were invited why did eight OF them HACK their
NSy WINS ass Ina. prayer Why
did they insult Walkers wife, calling her Minnie
and ssy hey would take her cut and wasse
,ut II he did not come outf ,,-.
The Attorney General will perhaps call your atten-
Deen recently committed In this State and call upon
,ou to make an example Of this young man. Gen.
lemsn II such acts as these 90 called serenaders
we're guilty OF was properly diecountenanced you
would never have been called in to try this case
The counsel then proceeded to argue the facts as
o what took place IN the mouse, tnat WakJr ssr oe
widow aud shot out to frighten the crowd away,
gainst the door TO break it In, when he whlred and
Ired without dcliberati0n or purpose, and counsel
aimed that Fred Williams who was walkers IKE , a,Ted
md should be believed, and that his testimony |
howed that walker fred without any delberauon
At the close of Mr.. Walton's remarks,
attorney General Baker began his plea,
three quarters of an hour that
light. Saturday morning he completed
lis argument, in q mastery effort OF two
lours duration. He portrayed the grief OF
he sorrow stricken father and mother, and
he loneliness OF the three little orphan
hildren, and compared that with the qniet
of the prisoner. His refer |
noes to the prisoner were very dramatic,
nd Walker was the only one in the court
Dom, unmoved by them. The argument
vas wi thout doubt the ablest ever heard In
ur court room and was closely followed.
The following are few Of the points made:
This affair grew out Of an old custom and must he
iewed in the light Of that. The same thing that ln
here this custom Of eercnading prevails is mere
M. what was the character Of this assembly,
Vas 1t gathering Of rufaAns or trampsr NO, % they
ons for fun and jollity. They were lads that DO
redt to the county where they live biun and kiId.
: and honest Are & ese farmers's Doys eavages
ears old, savage from the forest or Fred Hough-
On. Fred Copp or Fred Holbrookf II these were