Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1889-05-09


eft, surely this man could not have been
premeditating murder: Men do not do thus
when they contemplate crime. Men do
not make sacrifices for those they hate.
It is only for those they love, and the
whole history of this case shows
self-sacrifcing, devoted love on
one side, and abuse, curses
and blows on the other. But this
is not all. He came back to his house,
and the wife who should have been there
WAS gone. Then he went to Mrs. Gil
martins. His purpose was to pay few
more of the little debts he had contracted
for her, and there his wife followed him.
The scene in that small grocery has been
described. You know how that woman
rushed up TO him and screamed, Lou,
how dare you say am jealous of you, !"
and then the pent up volume OF drunken
abuse broke out The long suffering hus'
band again avoided her; he left the store,
and the last words he heard as he went
out the door were: 81 will follow you to
hell" The whole history of this day
is replete with such incidents. Hildebrand
went to the Cook house, and there, too,
this woman, as if bent on provoking her
fate, followed him. There she abused him; /;
there she drug him out. She forced him
into their own house and locked the door,
and what transpired in there no man in
Gods world but Louis Hildebrand knows.
HILDEBRAND's STORY.
Col. White analyzsd Hiliebrand's story
of the shooting, and made lengthy argu-
ment to reconcile Hildebrands statement
that the woman said Lou, | am going to
shoot" and Mrs. Cook statement that she
heard the woman scream Lou, don't
shoot" lie showed that the woman was
in another part of the house and used sew
eral illustrations to show the possibility OF
Mrs. Cooks being mistaken.
There was proof of innocence in the
prisoners story, the Colonel said,
and it corroborated by the eyi-
dence ofevery man who heard the
shots, and by the dying declara-
tiops of Mrs. Hildebrsnd herself. She
said Lon fired two shots at her feet, and
the third shot struck her. Does man
who premeditates murder, and who has
murder in his heart. amuse himself by
firing two shots at the feet OF his victim,
before killing? Does he give the nelghbor-
hood warning, and invite them in to see
the crime? No. II Louis Hildebrand had
intended 10 kill his wife he would have
shot her dead at the fret shot; he would
not have wasted his bullets and alarmed
the whole town by firing into the floor.
The facts corroborate Louis Hildebrand's
story. He did not commit murder. lie
did not waste two shots and then Kill his
wife, but as he says, the shooting was an
accident, and the wife who abused him,
the wife who beat him and threatened TO
take his life was the victim.
Col. White then illustrated Hildebrand's
theory of the shooting, showing how 1t
conld have occurred just AZ Hildebrand de-
scribed. The revolver was drawn behind
the woman; the two were struggling for 1t,
and in the struggle the weapon could be
discharged, and would then inhict Just
such wound AS the woman died Of The
wound would hardly have been inflicted in
any other way. The physicians say the
bullet entered az the left Of the small Of
the back, two inches from the backbone.
IL ran along under the flesh until il struck
the backbone ana then glanced INTO the
posterior portion of her lung. How else
could such wound have been made than
in the wsy Louis Hildebrand described.
If he had shot her from behind, rs the
State claims he did, the bullet would not
have taken euch course; there would have
been no glanciDg II would have gone
straight TO its mark and there worked its
deadly end.
AFTER THE CRIME.
Coming down to IIildebrand's actions ai-
ter the shooting, Col. White argued that
they did not show any guilt. He walked
out on the street, stopped at the corner 10
get some matches, went on up street, met
friends. came back TO Filsn's saloon, drank
and again went on up street until arrested.
A guilty man would not have done that.
A man who believed he had committed
murder would not have done that. II Louis
Hildebrand had besn guilty, and knew be
was guilty, be would have put the Ohio
river between him ard pursuit before an
other hour. But he was not guilty. and
we find him walking street after TINS quar-
rel az he had done after other quarrels with
his wife, and with no knowledge that she
had been hurt until arrested and informed
OF it.
Col. White closed with a careful and elo-
queut analysis of Mrs. Hlldebrand's dying
declaration, laying particular weight on
the fact that che never said that Hide
brand had murdered her, and repeatedly
asked that he be not punished in any way.
Col. Whites perorati0n was particularly
effective. and after it Col. Arnett asked
that the jury be allowed few minutes
rest.
COL. ARNErT's s ADDRESS.
After the recess Col. Arnett began the
closing address for the defense be pre-
faced his argument with an expression OF
surprise that the Sate had aaked for YER
dict of guilty in the first degree, claiming
thst such verdict would be dispropor-
tionate to the crime, even if it could be
shown that the prisoner was guilty Grim
inal. In his Judgment there was not a
single element of murder in the first de-
gree in the case. If there had beeh o
demand for verdict of voluntary man
slaughter, be would have felt that the
Prosecuting Attorney had gone as lar ~
he properly could in the matter, and he
believed from a review OF the testimony
and a careful consideration OF all the facts
before him verdict Of not guilty was the
inst enc and should be arrived ut without
difficulty.
Col. Arnett laid particular Importance
upon the necessity OF proof Of deliberation
and premeditation to constitute murder. 10
this case there was no evidence of delibers-
ton of any character The counsel for the
State had referred 10 the fact that Mrs
Cook had heard HilIebrand say while talk
ing to his dog that something WAS going to
happen. Was this sufficient evidence to
show premeditstiOn 1t was not declar-
ton of intent 10 commit murder and Mrs
Cook had herself heard him ssy the
slme thing dozens OF times before. She
had seen him in th3 same mood. she Dad
heard the same threat, if threat 1t was,
and she paid no attention to It, That
could not be evidence of deliberate IN
tent to commit crime, and without such
evidence and without proof that be had
made up his mind to commit this crime,
it would not be murder, it wouid not be
even manslsughter.
At this point Court adjourned, and Col.
Arnett will complete his argument to-
morrow. Mr. SOmmeryille will close for
the State, and the case will 20 to the jury
probably before dinner
FAIRMONT GOSSIP.
Special Telegram 10 ns Re0lSter.
r'AIRMoNT, w. VA, May s.-Carlotta,
a little daughter OF K. d. Walker, fell