St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-12-16
details OF Egelnnd's visit 10 his house on the
night previously mentioned
Miss Van VIE.

tue uoctOf was on lalQ, ready 10 TESTIFY
to the matter. Mr.. Erwin had to break
OFF his address at this point for the noon
adjbarnment. The afternoon sitting
promptly opened at 2 O'clock. and Mr..
Erwin at once plunged into Horizons re-
peated attempts to get his wife to sign
Il paper bearing out her statement that
Egelund had used force upon her, but
without avail. In 1889 he therefore
wrote her that he did not want anything
more to do with her. but would find
home for the children. At the same
llerton wrote Egelund, charging him
With the act, and received reply from
i him denying it. Mr.. Erwin now turned
ldlis attention to Horizons conduct in
Est. Paul. In April. 1889, he board
Fed with q Mrs. Linch on jackson
EAnd later with Mrs. Unger. of 40 East
Tenth street. He here formed the ac-
Isauaintance of Miss Yah Vie, who was
salso b0arder. Mrs. Unger gave up
her boarding establishment in Deem
Der OF that year, and the boarders were
scattered. But so pleasant had been
their associations that all agreed, If
another suitable place was found, to ac-
quaint each other. Horton for time
tboartled at the Clarendon, and in April
OF this year. as had been testified, rented
rooms at Ensley'S, on East Thirteenth
street. where Miss Van VIE also roomed.
Once Mr.. Erwin turned from the line of
his story, and interpolated:
1t is perfectly right and proper for me to
say right here that between Miss Van Vie
as perfect lady as one would wish to see
and Mr.. uorton-so far as | have been able to
ascertain gentleman IN every particular of
llfe-there grew UP q respectful and admir-
ing friendship to point that they both
recognized each other as warm and devoted
friends, Miss Van VIE understanding from
the beginning Of their friendly acquaintance
Nr was rind
cause OF his separation from his wife drew
from Miss Van Vie her absolute admiration
for the character of this defendant.
Reconciliation.
Mr. Erwin stated that while boarding
at the KEGS. July IA, Horton wenC to
Attorney Hitler Ill. Horton and :cOn-
suited him with reference to obtaining
a divorce. Mr.. Horton advised him
that under the circumstances it would
be necessary to obtain refusal of his
wife in order to base an action of pos
session or comply with his demands.
At the same time Mr.. Horton strongly
advised the defendant that he had bet
ter try and compromise the matter with
his wife to stand by the marriage bond.
Out of this arose the telegra ms and the
letters produced by the state. Mr..
Erwin said it was extremely strange
that the letter which would show most
uJOu tuG ISCOuciitdbiOit WHICH IOl-
lowed was gone. This letter, from HOr-
ton to his wife, in substance was that
they had been parted for four years;
that Louis had told him she was work
ing; that ii she would tell the truth of
the Egelund matter, telling him as much
as she had told other people, he was
willing to forget ali on his part and
make home for her in st. Paul. Aug.
. Horton received an answer, and tnat
1.
WELL that she had been sick; |
that she had dropsy in the limbs;
that she bad been working out; descrb-
Ing her circumstances and tell MIR.
Horton unless he found a home for her
and the children they would have to go
and beg upon the streets: that she had
been to the justice of the peace with
the statement he left, but that the JUS
tice had advised her not to sign it. This
letter appealed to Horizons heart, and
he at once set about to have his wife to
come and live with him in st. Paul.
MIR. Erwin claimed that there was noth-
ing strange: nothing concealed, moth
ing singular; but his conduct fully eX-
planned itself.
VIII Clear Him.
/ have covered the ground so far as to
have Horton and wife and the little girl
Mabel i'll st. Paul. MIR. Erwin turned
his attention to the case against the de- |
PENDANT. He said:
What have they attempted TO prove? What |
are we required to answer? What person is |
there comes here and says we killed his wife |
and child? Who comes here and says he |
heard US Kill The wife ana child: The dead |
body of the wife was found. No marx of |
violence on her. Is there a bruisa, one mark, |
one strange thlngf Not thing. But what |
have they proved and OH what do they rely, |
sand what must we rebut: That he kept his |
room at KEGS and paid 81 a week?
Mr.. Erwin said that this was easily |
explained. Horton merely kept this
room for storage purposes until he went |
to hous excepting. 1t would have cost |
him more to move them to West ST. |
Paul than to keep the room. 1t Was |
said that it was circumstance of guilt |
that Horton did not tell the KEGS he |
was married man. MIR. Erwin |
combatted this by saying that it was not |
likely Horton was going to take prac-
tical strangers into mis- family secrets.
1t was said the letter he wrote his wife to |
bring no furniture and bring Mabel was |
suspicious. MIR. Erwin claimed that the |
letters fully explained this. There was
no place to put the furniture: SO why |
should he not tell his wife not to bring |
any Tor the present. Mr.. Erwin added:
You will find when you come to apply the |
claims 0t the prosecution to ihIs case. you
If you can believe the Case attempted to pe |
made out. You will find yourselves COM
PEELED TO admit that he sent for little Mabel |
for the purpose of killing her. When you do
that you must have strong reasons for any
such. Men MAY kill their wives i'll an insane |
mood but never Kill children. 1t would be the |
most absurd most disgusting platitude ever
put before jury for conten plation and !
there is not evidence enough III this case to
stand its shadow upon in any department |
of it.
Purely Accidental.
Mr.. Erwin detailed the boat ride, ar
guing from first to last it was purely an
accident. The defendants conduct aft
erwardS proved that he was not guilty |
of the wicked crime charged against |
him. Itcould be proved that the boat
was dangerous one; that it was dan
gerously loaded the night of the acct
dent; that defendant was an
inexperienced oarsman; that the
body of the child must still |
be at the bottom of the river A witness
would also be produced who heard Mrs.
Horton or the child scream when the
accident occurred. THIS witness was
bathing in the river at the time near the
government light. Mr.. Erwin remarked
the defense having proved the drown
ing was accidental. Miss Van VIE cut
no figure whatever in the proceedings.
adding:
Not That we don't want TO approach that
question fairly and honestly. but we want
you to approach it with the understanding
that we are not compelled TO approach it at
ali.
Miss Van Vie had no hesitation to 60
onto the stand. but the state had not
called her. They had introduced let
ter from Miss Van Vie to the defend
ant, but that letter affected the case no
more than if it was directed to him.
There was nothing in the circum-
stances connected with the death of
Mrs. Horton which showed and con-
WINGED the mind of any sane man
that Mr.. Horton drowned his wife and
child by force and by premeditition.
The relations of Miss Van Vie and Hor-
ton would be clearly shown to the jury;
Horton would answer fully, fairly and
1lf, ,Il1r IL. tl,nca