The critic., 1890-12-23

The instructions were then carefully pc
ruscd by Justice Bingham, who made sew
cral corrections in them that were ac-
ccptcd by counsel on both sides.
The Justice called attention 20 the
prayer containing the instruction that if
the shooting was accidental the jury could
not return verdict of guilty OF man
slaughter. In order to show that man
slaughter took place, the Justice said, II
must be shown that the defendant was
engaged in an unlawful act when the
manslaughter took place.
Mr.. Coleman stated that the instruction
had been drawn without considering the
lawful or unlawfulness of the firing of
pistol in u saloon. lie believed himself
that the act was lawful. Mr.. Clagett,
however, claimed that the firing of q pis-
tol in public place like saloon was
clearly unlawful, being against the police
regulations
District Attorney Hoge at this point
read a prayer of instruction which he
had prepared in behalf of the prosecu-
ton.
The prayer considered the subject of in
sanity and was mainly taken from the
charge of Judge Cox to the jury in the
Guitcau case. Among the propositions
contained in the PRAYER were the follow
ing: If only partial insanity existed the
defendant had knowledge of right and
wrong, and therefore insanity was no de-
fense. The fact that the defendant was
suffering from deusions did not indicate
insanity. The defendant may be insane
upon one subject and not upon another
and therefore insanity cannot be used as a
defense, and, finally, il is for the jury to
determine. that the defendant was insane
ut the tinic the net of killing was COM
mitted and not before or after that act.
The usual half-hour recess was taken ut
1910 o'clock, during which Justice Bing-
ham considered the prayers for instruc-
ton submitted by the counsel of both
sides. When the court resumed its after
noon session Mrs. Ward, accompanied by
another lady, appeared among the
spectators.
Mr.. Clagett opened the proceedings by
reading the police regulations governing
the use of firearms within the city limits.
Justice Bingham suggested that the third
instruction contained in the prayer of the
defense, which embraces the idea of man
slaughter, should be so changed as to COM
ply with the law.
Mr.. Coleman thought that it would be
better for the defense If the Court would
reject that instruction and permit the de-
fense to substitute another complying
with the directions of the Court.
The question whether the instructions
as passed upon by the Court should be
read in the course of their arguments was
tlltll NloNuostu az SOlilt ltltgtIl DN NltSSTS.
Wilson, Coleman, and Clagett.
Justice Bingham then stated that the
first two instructions of the defense would
be granted and the third would be granted
with the addition of the suggestion he had
already made.
The instruction regarding verdict of
not guilty on the ground of insanity, the
Justice said. he was willing to accept, but
not in the form in which it was stated in
the prayer
Mr.. Wilson noted exceptions to all the
instructions offered by the Government
on the ground that they represented
merely abstract principles of the law and
did not bear upon the case under trial.
The instructions, however, with several
objections. were accepted by the court
Justice Bingham stated that he would
not, of course, limit the counsel in the
time given for argument, whereupon
Judge Wilson said that he hoped to get in
two arguments this afternoon and two to-
morrow morning, thus finishing the case.
At2 o'clock, the matter of instructions
being finished, the jury returned to their
box.
Judge Wilson then, the objections of
the prosecution having been overcome,
| read the testimony of Mr.. John Drew
| taken on the examination for bail.
| Mr.. Drew was reporter of the Press and
testified that he had an interview with
Officers Hamilton and Hughes on the
| night of the shooting in the Marble Saloon,
regarding what Ward said when arrested:
The officers told him that Ward said II
have done him" or 81 have did it' He
| also had conversation with the officers
| the next evening ut the station-house in
| which he told the officers that Ward had
| felt aggrieved on account of the use of the
word Jew which appeared in the news
papers and he, Drew, desired to correct
| the mistake If Ward had not used the
Word when arrested
The officers denied that they had heard
Ward use any expression containing the
word Jew"
After reading the testimony of Drew,
Officer Hamilton was recalled to the
stand by Mr.. Clagett. He testified that he
saw Mr.. Drew on the night after the
shooting and hada conversation with him
regarding Ward, in which Officer Hughes
took no part.
DIR. Schaeffer was then called by the
Government and asked by Mr.. Clagett if
he had found any evidence of an incurable
disease upon Adler's body when he per-
formed the autopsy The defense objected
to the question, and the objection was
sustained by the Court. Mr.. Clagett then
asked the witness If he had examinettth
body to discover any disease which might
cause death.
DR.. Schaeffer replied that he had done
so, and had found no manifestations of an
incurable disease.
DIR. Schaeffer had also made a micro
scopic examination of the mark on the
pillar in the Marble Saloon, and found no
indication that 1t had been made by a
bullet. The mark appeared to have been
made by some sharp instrument
At the close Of, Thu CRIrrc's report DR..
Schaeffer was still on the stand. At the
conclusion of his testimony Mr.. Clagett
will probably begin the opening argument
for the Government.
Mr.. Clagett began his argument to the
jury at O'clock.