Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-11-25
CUL. M00RE'S APPEAL.
The Attorney Grows Eloquent in His
Defense Of Gerade.
BOTH SIDES OF THE CASE HEARD.
The Plea of Insanity Made Strong for the
Alleged Murderer.
OTHER INTERESTING COURT NEWS

cerned The counsel for the defense con-
tinued their effort TO the last to establish
Gerade's insanity. 1t required all of the
forenoon to take the testimony of three ex-
pert physicians who had examined the de-
iendant These were Drs. McCord, Wylie
and Chesrown, the latter the Jail physician.
DR.. McCord had only made the prison
one visit and thought him insane. DIR.
Wvlie had made several visits and found
him suffering from acute dimentia He
considered from the reports he had received
from the jail officials of the mans condition
when he was received that he had been in
sane when he committed the crime. DR..
Wylie was put under rather severe cross
examination by Mr. Burleigh, during
which he admitted that Gerade was also in a
very bad physical condition and that this
fact might produce vacuity, or dullness of
facial expression, depression of spirits and
consequent immobility of countenance,
such as had been attributed to Gerade.
DIR. Chessrown testified as to the con-
dition OF the prisoner when he was admitted
10 the jail. 1t was developed during the
morning that Gersde had been drinking
some prior to the murder.
Addressing the Jury.
AT $50 O'Clock NJ. H. Stevenson began to
address the jury for the prosecution. He
began by discussing the plea of insanity set
up in the case and said that the jury was
not to consider the conduct of the defendant
before or since the crime, but they must
consider what it was on the night of the
killing. He discussed the motives of the
maD in taking butcher knife to bed with
MIN, claiming that Gerade had evidently
rremedtated the killing of some
one, more presumably his wife,
he vented his spite by blowing out the
brains of his step-child He described the
conduct of Gerade during and after the
killing, his resistance when arrested and ar
gued that his was not the acts of an insane
individual
. J. Charles Dicken spoke next for the de-
fense. He disputed the argument of the
Former speaker BY denying that there was
any evidence showing that the defendant
was on unfriendly terms with his wife. He
claimed that it was only an infer
ence that Gerade had killed the
child. No witness had testified to
He then reviewed the testimony of the
Commonwealth, claiming that there was not
word produced showing the sanity of the
defendant. He then took up the testimony
Of the defense, which, he claimed showed
from beginning to end that Gerade was of
unsound mind when the act was committed.
Colonel w. d. Moore spoke next, making
what was conceded by many to be the mas
ter speech of his life in cases of this kind.
Supposing Geradc to be guilty of the kill
ing of his step-child, Colonel Moore took
up the question of insanity as q
defense. He said the Supreme Court
had dnd hot daft Io
determined by the weight of the testi-
mcny; the number and character of the wit
nesses examined for either side. His
graphic description of the arrest of the man
in his cellar, seated upon a box with q
lighted lamp by his side, with knife in
one hand and fork in the other in the act
of cutting victuals for his own consump-
tion, seemed to impress the jury with the
idea that there were grounds for suspicion |
as 10 the condition of Gerade. Taking up
the evidence of the defense which he said |
had been given by the friends, relatives and |
neighbors of the defendant, Colonel Moore |
said there was not a single word denying |
the fact that Gerade had treated his step |
child and cared for her as his own; and |
every one of the witnesses testified that |
they had discovered q sudden change in the |
defenGant's conduct to the surprise of his |
friends and acquaintance, to the grief and |
distraction of his brother and other rela- |
tives. And this was all before the killing. |
There was no feigning insanity, for there |
was no motive for such action.
As to the charge that Gerade was of in |
temperate habits, Colonel Moore said the |
overwhelming testimony was that the de- |
fendant was just like many Germans, and |
many who are not Germans, and indeed |
quite few who are lawyers; he took drink !
once in a while, but did not drink to excess. |
He next described the manner in which the |
physicians had watched Gerade in Jail and |
had determined upon his condition.
An Earnest Appeal
Closing, Colonel Moore said: 'Tt is in |
all cases the most solemn and awful re- |
sponsibility laid upon man to take away |
what only God can give, the life of fellow |
mortal. If this was an ordinary case, if the |
act had been committed by one proven to |
be rational, it would still be the
most awful duty, one which L |
do not envy, devolving upon man.
But when by a mass of testimony, mount
ain high, met by rebuttal SO trivial as to
be pitiable, the defendant has been shown
10 be hopelessly insane, then to doom this
man TO death, to send a maniac from court |
TO the scafold, is to revolt every feeling of
the human heart. TO outrage conscience and |
to trample human reason under foot. 1t is
to commit judicial murder. If you twelve
Intelligent and honorable men shall so de-
termine then we can only submit to the fate
appointed and silently appeal to the pity,
the justice and judgmen: of an all-knowing
and all-righteous God"
District Attorney Burleigh closed the ar
gument for the Commonwealth. He began
by saving: Il don't believe in throwing a
lot OF superfluous matter into the jury box
about the awful responsibility of jury in
cases of this kind. OF course your duty is
a responsible one. So is the duty of any
jury in the most ordinary civil suit You
are to bring III a verdict according to the
facts and the Court will do the rest. The
does not ask you to bring in
an unjust verdict and the defense should !
not ask you to render verdict modified by
sympathy or manufactured defense"
Mr.. Burleigh then related the duty of the |
counsel for the defense in order to establish
a case on plea Of insanity, and then said
that proved Gerade sane; first, that he knew
enough to resist arrest, and, second, that he
was sharp enough not to tell anything about
his crime. A third fact that establishes the
mans guilt was that he had told a friend
two days before the crime that he was about
TO get into trouble, and asked him if he
would be a friend to him. He then read the
law fixing the duty OF the defense, and then
the testimony and closed by ask
ing for a verdict convicting the defendant of
some one of the charges. /
The court then adjourned until $50 clock
this morning, when Judge Ewing will de-
liver his charge to the jury.
AFereign Attachment Issued.
ID. Lutz & Son yesterday issued writ of
IL