Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1889-05-09
TALKING FOR LIFE.
ARGUMENTS IN THE HILDBBRAND MURDER
TRIAL.
The Jury Views the Scene Of the Murder and the
Remainder Of the Day Consumed by
COunssl-In the Jurys Hands
To-Day.


Court with arguments in the Hildebrant
murder trial. At the ten o'clock tn,
Judge and jury proceeded to the Hide
band house, and the location of the apart
ments and scene of the shooting was ex
planned to them. On their return, Prose
cutting Attorney Howard opened for thu
State.
MR. HowARD's ARGUMENT
was one of the strongest that has beer
head in behalf of the State in case OF tn,
kind for long time in Wheeling court
room. His explanation of the law bearins
on the case was clear and felicitous, snd
his review of the testimony was eminently
fair and effective. He opened the areu
ment by discussion of the law of homi
eide, quoting extensively from legal au
thoIities. The Douglas Gaze Of Virgins
was cited, in order to illustrate the doc
trine of malice. He argued from the prin
ciples laid down there, that malice ant
sforethought as contemplated by the la7
did not require long time TO
deliberstion. 1t was not necessary that {
crime should be contemplated for weeRs Il
make it murder in the first degree. A mar
need not lay in wait by the road side, h'
need not plot and plan to give evidences o
malice. The malice was presumed in {
case where murder was committed with
deadly weapons, and no particular tint
was required for deliberstion and premedi
tation. The intention TO take the life OF 6
fellow mortal might be conceived in a few
moments, in an instant; the time for delib
GRAFTON and premeditation might not bt
longer than it would take to draw his
weapon. 1t might not be longer than il
would take TO uplift bis hand or draw back
the hammer of his revolver, and yet the
crime would be murder, and murder in the
first degree.
The question Of exienuation, Mr. How
ard said, might be brought into the1case,
and what were the extenuating circum-
stances, ifany? The defense had produced
witness after witness TO show the character
of the woman who was now gone from the
earth. That feature OF the case he would
discuss further along. Another plea hac
been set up, the prisoner WAS intoxicated
hut voluntary intoxicstion was no excuse
for crime, and the intoxicaton OF the pris
oner, if he was intoxicated, was certainly
voluntary.
SUMMING UP THE TESTIMONY.
The Prosecuting Attorney then review ed
the testimony in detail, beginning with
the ecene in Mrs. Cooks kitchen. There
prisoner said something was going to hap
pen soon. He made use of direct threat
and Mrs. Cook. by-stsnder, well under
stood at whom il WAS directed. He may
not have intended at that time to take the
life OF Mary Hildebrsnd, Just ~ ii was
taken, and at the time il was taken. lie
may not have planned all the details OF
the crime that followed so soon after, but
there was murder in his heart, and oct Of
that malicious intent grew the horrible
event for which he was there on trial. II
was enough TO constitute murder to prov,
that man has an intent TO kill. II thi
man had pointed his revolver at his wife
and had missed and killed his own mOthe
instead, the crime would have been muir
der ust the same, because the evil inten
was there, and the sacrifice Of life grew
out oft. So it WAS with Louis Hide
brand. He paraded his desire to iDjure hi
wife. He did do so, and now should b.
made TO bear the penalty of his crime.
HIDEBRAND's STORY
ON the witness stand was then taken up
and particular attention paid 10 the Incl
dant of the stove-lifter. The instrument
was described, and the circumstances o.
the alleged blow by Mrs. Hildebrand. Yet,
while the prisoner, he said, was able and
anxious to show a large scar from another
blow from the same weapon and
in the same hands, there was
no scar from this blow. If Louis
Hilde5rand had been struck by his wife at
that time, why did he wait till he got on
the witness stand to tell it to the world?
Why did he not urge it in his own de-
tense long before this? Why did he con-
ceal the fact of the blow? He did not be-
lieve Louis Hildebrand was ever struck by
his wife in that fatal kitchen. There was
not an iota of evidence to show 1t, and the
Jury should not be influenced by that part
of the prisoners testimony by one jot or
title.
Mr.. Howard continued to review Hide
brands story of the crime, and pointed
out that he must have known that his wife
was shot when revolver was fired point
blank within foot of her, as he admitted
himself, and yet he deliberately went out
of the house and up street without even IN
quiring if she WAS burt or ascertalning the
extent of her injuries. That was not the
course an innocent man would have pur'
sued. But Hildebrand Left the house. he
went on up street and then a guilty feal
came over him. He thought the re
yolver. with its three empty cham
bers. would be evidence against him, and h'
stopped and loaded it. If he did not fee
that he had committed crime why die
he do this, and why afterwards did be sliI
the revolver to friend instead OF givinf
il up to an officer. No, no! Hlldeoranc
knew he had committed a crime. h'
knew he had murdered his wife and hi
guilty fear drove him to these acts, whicf
furnish tho strongest evidence u
convict him. Mr.. Howard concluded by
drawing picture of the dead wife's char
acter. and declared that it mattered no
what her faults were, the man who killed
her WAS a murderer. This part OF his ad
dress was particularly strong. lie con
cluded by asking the jury for verdict o
guilty in the first degree.
COL. WHITES ARGUMENT.
Court reassembled at 2 o'clock, and Col
White opened for the defense. He devo
te / some time to discussion Of the law
of homicide, combating some statements
made by Mr. Howard. lie then took or
the present case and analyzed the testi
mony. He first reviewed the history O
Hildebrands married life, and pictured
the dead womans character. lie apollo
gized for introducing these facts, but saiC
Il was only from knowledge of them tha
the iury could understand all the circum
stances that surrounded the deed. 1t waS
enough to say that she was woman tot
much addicted TO drink. She was too
fond of leaving her home and wandering
about the streets in the night. She Wa
too full of passion and bitter words, anc
when in drink she did not coniine mel
abuse TO words alone, but often beat ano
bruised the prisoner.
The counsel then reviewed the scenes
Immediately preceding the murder, refer
ring 10 the incident described by witness
Cook. when she abused the prisoner anc
struck bin with stove litter. On that
occasion Hildebrand got up and left the
house, and not one word of fremonstrance ol
reproach came from his lips. He asked
woman friend to wash of the blood, and
quietly pursued his way up street, and II
was thus, he said, on every occasion when
ever the termagant, whom he called wife
came at him with blows and curses. II
was thus too on the day Of this unfortunate
affair. He was assaulted By his wife, ant
as soon as he could get away he left, anC