Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 18??-????, 1889-05-31

tGagHExF oF CoUSsEI
The District Attorney, = ". IsissesSer,
opened the argument for prosecution, by
first detailing the circumstances OF the rob
berry. Tie evidence was then all review
ed. showing in his estimation tia, it f4zleus
the crime on the eceusel. He said We
have shown By uncOatrafiesed testimony
that the acersel p.rtIss were in the cpaaty
on AMI ab3at the Yolsr settlem 'isl, goins
from place 10 place, and making suggestive
inquiries as to rich flrmers. They were not
working anywhere, or seeking employment.
We have, also. proven that they were
in the County on day Of robbery. Also,
they were identified by Stevanus Ella Baker
and Miss Wilhelm who were at Mr.. foder's.
and who we're tied by them. After the rob
berry we have shown that they were gling
out of the CJaaty tow4ris FIyetie C)a1ty.
and were arrested with the stolen property
in their possession. This was clearly proven
by such witnesses as the three Hanna ;, and
other reputable men of the County. The
attempt 10 prove an alibi by immediate re-
Iations and jail birls wIs, as the jury well
knew. most miserable failure. Under all
the circumstances we do not doubt that
your verdict gentlemen Of the jury, will be
guilty in form and manner as indicted.
John II. Uhl for the defense, referred to
the gravity OF the charge showing the pen-
atty involved If conviction follows. lie said
in substance that the prosecution failed to
identify clearly any of the accused. Only
few OF the witnesses said they saw either Of
the Suilivans in Somerset Comfy, and they
were not positive in their assertions. We
contend that they have not proven the pres
cnce of either Jack or Marsh Sullivan in the
County. All we ask is verdict in accor-
dance with the sworn testimony.
We have proven by good witnesses that
both Sulliyans we're over in the region Of
Uniontown on the day Oft robbery and
on several days after this. How could
these or 5 witnesses be mistaken, or is il
possible that they have periured themselves.
These Witnesses swear positively that both
the Sulliyans were at the birthday party at
Densmore's in Fayette County on the 18th
Of April, the day Mr Yoier was 50 fearfally
abused and robbed.
The argument founded on the fact that
the Sullivans had been in prison, ought to
have no weight. They gave testimony like
honest men, and do tthey look like truth
full witnesses.
Court Adjourned.
Court convened promptly at o'clock
and four prisoners only, viz. Lewis, TAsker,
and the two Sulliy4n's were msrshaled in
by the Sheriff, the others having been dis
charged
A. C. Holbeft, Esq one of defendants
counsel, addressed the jury in substance as
follows:
We don't deny that a robbery was COM
mitted at Yoder's house, nor are we here to
say word in palliation Of The crime; but
are here 10 deny that these four men, nor
one Of them had anything to do with it.
The jury must divest their minds from all
prcjudiccs aud form an opinion on the evil
dence offered.
Certain principles to be kept in view, viz.
Every man is presumed 10 be innocent
until found guilty the prosecution must
make ont the guilt Of the accused, and show
that none other than they could have com
mitted the robbery that the prisoners must
have the benefit Of reasonable doubts. What
is reasonable doubt Many defnati ons.
But take this, ify you were particularly con-
nected with the prisoners a doubt would
lead you to acquit. So you ought 10 view
your duty in this case.
-Four men are weeded out, and only four
are before you Steyanus tries to identify
them and having seen the men often, final
ly, through prejudice thought they might be
the men Ella Baker identities Lewis and
Tasker, by having seen them before could
not Others have been mistaken for them.
Mr. Yoder, with good eyesight could not
say these were the men who so bTutally
abused and robbed him. Again, none Of the
money was found and identified, and the
fact that a few dollars were found in the pos
session Of one Of the Sullivans was no evi-
dence, as any young man could easily make
a little money. The prisoners were not
identified by any peculiar mark about them;
the witnesses only saying We know them be-
cause we know them; it is ike saying the
COW crossed the road because she crossed il;
the Commonwealth has proved too much
HaDna's and McClintock's testimony don't
mix more than oil and water; what becomes
of the shadow Of the shade the latter spoke
of The men carrying bags, seen by him,
seem to be other kind of men than those de-
scribed by Hanna Four men travel over to
Eiklick but only two returned. What be-
came of the other two The Commonwealth
only brings two back, Lewis aud Tasker.
Where were the Sulivans2 We have already
proved that they were over about Onion
town, thus proving an alibi. You would
prove where you were at any certain time
by the friends with whom you were; the
Sullivans proved where they were on the
18th of April by a brother-in-law, Dinsmore.
Prosecutors Try to prejudice the case by
singing into your ears Il e baddCods of tie
McClellandtown gang. Joe Paul, and Peter
Gooseman swore the Salliyan's were at
Dinsmores at the time named. SO Poloeks
brotber-in. law sworc.
Both Sullivans, and their brother Henry
Testified q za,us off tflf,- inoar-