Huntsville gazette., 1888-07-14

Tracy and George W. Badger, who went
| from st. Louis after him Three months
| after the murder, August 49, he was re-
turned to St Louis and lodged in jail
He employed John l.. Martin and P. w.
Fauntlsroy to defend him, but did not dis
close his real name until the next day. when
throu sh letter his father had written to
John D. Vincil. Masonic friend, it became
suspected that he was Hugh Brooks. Brooks
attempted to conceal his name for some time
longer, but he finally broke down and ac-
knowledged that he was the son of the
English schoolmaster In October his father
came to St. Louis from Hyde to see him,
and at once began to work to save his sons
life, bringing forward all his Masonic inhu-
ence and all Of his financial resources, ruin
ing himself and his family. The trial began
May 10, 1884, and ended June g. 1t was a
sensational trial throughout. The defense
Of accidental killing was pressed by Max
wells attorneys with great skill, but the
fatal flaw in it was that they could not pro
duce the catheter with which Maxwell said
he was about to operate on Preller when he
gave him the chloroform, although all the
effects of both men were accessible
Maxwell said that he had thrown the
valise, with this catheter, into the Pacific
ocean while on his way to Auckland, but the
jury did not believe that. On the other
hand the prosecutors had nothing to prove
that Maxwell murdered Preller for his
money except circumstantial evidence until
they put on the stand detective named
John F. Mccullough Mccullough did his
work we'll He was arrested at the Mechan-
les bank about a month before the trial
began while pretending to pass a forged
check. was put into Jail and indicted by the
grand jury. Maxwell fell easily into the
trap set for him, and became intimate with
Frank Dingfelder, McCullough's assumed
name. Mccullough testified that Maxwell
told him he had killed Preller because his
friend was too stingy to pay his expenses to
New Zealand and he had done it with a
morphine syringe and chloroform. The
syringe was put in evidence.
More than this Mccullough said that he,
Maxwell aud Maxwell's attorneys, Martin
and Fauntleroy, had entered into an agree
ment to procure the testimony of perjurers
to save Maxwell. and letters from the two
lawyers corroborating this were exhibited
with piece of card, which had been written
upon by Maxwell and torn in two, the two
plCCCo W OC uSct dlttTWdI QS dS cT6uenGId4S
by the two parties to the felonious agree
ment. This story Of McCulloughs as well
supported as it was by other evidence, had
great effect upon tire jury. A still stronger
point against Maxwell was made by his own
evidence. He lied, evaded, was palpably
hypocritical and candidly unprincipled when
he was put OH the stand, and when he left it,
1t was generally thought that he would be
fntrn frtrIlt L.
all night, and came into court the next
morning with verdict of guilty
On June . 1886, Max well was convicted of
murder in the first degree. His attorneys,
Messrs Martin and Fauntleroy, filed mo
tion for new trial on June on twenty five
different grounds The motion for new
trial was overrued ON July Z, and Maxwell
was sentenced to be hanged on August 81,
1856. An appeal was granted and a stay of
execution until October :; another stay was
granted to January l and another to Feb
ruary l. Another stay was then granted
pending the appeal and on June l, 1857, the
state supreme court affirmed the decision
Of the lover court; second hearing of the
case resulted no differently.
Another stay was granted to allow the
defendants counsel to appeal to the United
States supreme court, before which Messrs.
Martin and Fauntleroy argued the case
claiming that the defendant had been denied
the rights granted by the constitution to a
fair and impartial trial The United States |
supreme court remande1 the case back to the !
state supreme court without passing on the |
justice on fairness of the trial, but simply |
holding that there was nothing in the case |
that brought it within their jurisdiction. A |
rehearing was obtained with the same result
In the decision of the state supreme court
the dissenting opinion Of Justice Sherwood
attracted much public attention and com
ment. He denounced the "Dingfelder' pro
ceeding as an outrage on Justice