The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-06-13

that the murder was to be committed with
ory must aid or abet In the crime. There
was nothing charged in the verdict direct
ly, unless il was that Sullivan had a knOwl-
edge of the plot or conspiracy, and the ac-
cused should at least be admitted TO bail.
Mr.. Trude followed Mr.. Gilbert. He said
that the Klepper case cited by Mr.. Longe-
necker was decided in 1862, under the act of
1S45: But Sullivan's petition was based on
the habeas corpus act of 1874, which did not
require that the testimony should be set
forth. Besides, there was no provision Tor
the reporting of testimony, and 1t was I'M
possible for the accused to get 1t. Mr..
Trude said it was grossly improper TO ad-
NIT IN evidence the suspicious of deceased
person, as was done nineteen times in the
Cronin inquest in one day. The inner
workings of a dead mans mind were al
lowed to be brought before it; not only
what he said, but what he suspected. Such
evidence would not be sanctioned In
a court of justice for moment.
These statements went out to people who
did not know that the evidence was not
evidence at all. For instance, man-Dil-
lon-who said 1T was right to murder men
in England, but not right TO murder men
in America, gave evidence as to Sullivan's
alleged speculations through Lester, and
this was brought in as evidence that Snlli-
van had something to do with Cronin's
murder. Surrounded by Sulliyan's enemies
the Jury imbibed all of this irrelevant and
improper evidence based on suspicion. sur
mise and conjecture, and found a verdict
against him tor murder. The bill of rights,
which guaranteed the inalienable right Of
citizens, provided that unless there were
positive proof, or q strong presumption or
guilt, the accused should not be held In
imprisonment. Sullivan had made no
effort to run away. He had been at
home at night and in his office by day,
and he was not a felon who had been
brought back from some State to which he
had fed Mr.. Trude referred to the might
scavengers," who had been around trying
to collect evidence against the accused.
Judge Tuley said: II am relieved of some
difficulty by the statement of counsel that
the object of this application is TO admit
the accused to bail. A demurrer to the
petition is not q proper practice. and ought
not to be permitted. The practice is, If the
States attorney desires to raise the ques-
tion of the sufficiency of the petition. he
should move to quash the writ That IS the
pears to me it would be hardship to re-
quire a prisoner to obtain copy of the
testimony before a coroners jury before he
can sue to regain his liberty. don't know
whether the coroner has the power to give
a certified copy of evidence. The verdict
of the coroners jury is exceedingly indeh-
mite and informal. 1t finds that these
prisoners were either guilty of the
murder or had guilty knowledge of it. 1t
finds neither one thing nor the other. lt
might have been sufficient had the jury LETT
out '.or had a guilty knowledge" But the
jury have recommended that these parties
be held. ] deem it proper that the people
should answer. showing whether there Is
sufficient evidence to hold the accused.
think that is due, in view of the indefinite
ness of the verdict. The only. question i
have to determine is whether there is suf-
ficient evidence to hold Alexander sulh-
Judge Longenecker offered to produce the
evidence taken before the coroner, and let
the court read over those parts relating to
Sullivan.
Mr. Trude objected. He said that the
practice in other cases was to put on the
stand the witnesses whom the State had.
to prove the charge made. He wanted the
States attorney to bring on his witnesses
and hear them verbally.
II don't propose to set here three or four
weeks, as the coroner did," said the court.
"Your Honor won't have to do that. We
will never be able to get anything else like
that coroner's inquest" said Mr. Trude.
1t was finally agreed that the court
oner's jury, and have the testimony of those
witnesses touching on the alleged connec-
tion of Alexander Sullivan pointed out to
him. 1t was some time before MIR. Irude
would consent to this He said that neither
he nor his client knew what the evidence
was, except by newspaper reports. Then
the court suggested that III Mr.. Sullivan
were not satisfied to leave the matter en-
tirely with him he could cross-examine
certain witnesses on the stand. but
the States attorney would lee allowed 10
also put in evidence. Thereupon. Mr. Trude
consulted with his client. Mr.. Sullivan
promptly agreed to leave the evidence with
the court and decide if it were sufficient to
hold him. The court said he would con-
sider it legally without prejudice, but could
not promise to get through with the mat
ter before Friday morning.
Mr.. Sullivan was remanded, therefore.
until 10 o'clock Friday morning at which
time the court thinks he will have finished
reading the evidence. If the evidence is
not sufficient, in the courts opinion, Judge
Tuley can discharge Sullivan, if no indict-
ment is returned by the grand jury, and ad-
NIT him to bail if there is an indictment.