The record-union., 1891-12-15
IN THE SHADE OF THE GALLOWS.
Charles Freeman Must Hang for the
Death of Mark Feeny.
But the Supreme Court Casts Grave
Doubt on the Testimony That
Convicted Him.

OF Mark Feeny, came to hand yesterday
and was filed in this city by Deputy
Clerk Govan.
The defendant was tried and convicted
In Judge Van Fleets court, in this city,
or murder in the first degree, and SEN
fenced to death. He appealed from the
Judgment and from the courts order de-
nying him a new trial
Freeman, Mark Feeny and two other
men, Terrill and Wilkes, were employed
on the ranch of one De Kay near Ante
Iope, in this county, The four men oc-
cupied small house on ranch four
miles from the home of their employer.
y day or two prior to March 6, 1890, Ter
rill went to De Kay's home, leaving only
freeman and Wilkes at the other place.
The weather was too rainy to admit of
IloWlng, and having no work to do on
the afternoon of March 9th, Freeman and
Wilkes took their shotguns and went
hunting, leaving Feeny alone on the
ranch
Feeny was a small man and physically
weak, and there had been complaint on
the part of the hands as TO his inefficiency
as, a cook
Freeman and Wilkes returned at 10
o'clock at night, after having had several
thinks at wayside inn. Both were sober
enough however, to remember all the
"details of what ensued. Two stories were
told-one by Freeman and one by
Wilkes.
WILKES RECITAL OF THE CRIME.
Wilkes testified that when they got
home Feeny called out that the supper
was on the table, and shortly afterWard
Freeman came in and said he was going
to kill Feeny. He insisted that Wilkes
help him, and when the latter refused he
l. No bod !, 4
through one of his ears. Wilkes finally
Lad to submit, and he consented to help
Eli teeny. Freeman, with his gun in
one hand, went to the cooks bed, and
picking the sickly Feeny up under one
arm, carried him out to barrel of water,
wilkes in the meantime standing by. too
Terrified to interfere. Freeman threw
feeny
HEAD FIRST INTO THE BARREL
OF water and held him there about four
minutes, until he was quite dead. He
then ordered Wilkes to get upon a horse
and go to De Kay's and inform him that
they (Freeman and Wilkes) had found
the cook drowned in a barrel of water
Wilkes went and told De Kay the truth
CT the matter.
FREEMAN's STATEMENT.
Freeman told an entirely different
story. He said he and Wilkes quarreled
while returning home, and he knocked
Wilkes down with his gun They then
went to the house and Wilkes, on going
outside, made the discovery of Fecny
hanging in the water barrel. his feet
touching the ground. When Wilkes
went OIL to notify the De Kays, Freeman
went over to a neighber's and told his
story. He also said he was nervous. and
he asked for drink Of whisky.
Both OF these conflicting stories were,
TO some extent, corroborated and con-
tradlcted by circumstances.
WHAT THE COURT SAYS.
The Supreme Court reviews the testi-
nlony of each thoroughly and points out
details in each which make doubts arise
Ut was claimed as a confederation of
Wilkes story that fresh blood was found
ia the bedroom where the fight occurred.
but the Supreme Court saws that "on the
other hand it seems to be claimed that the
blood is accounted for by the supposition
that Wilkes, though wounded at the
bridge, might have continued to bleed
after his arrival at home.'
'Freeman's story" says the opinion,
sis opposed to the fact testified to bv sew
eral witnesses, that the bridge upon
which he says he knocked Wilkes down
was covered with mud, and that no mud
was observed on Wilkes clothes when he
arrived at the home ranch. AS against
the conclusiveness of this circumstance
there was some testimony that the bridge
was not ordinarily very muddy excpDt
near the ends, and that there had been
heavy rains by which it was washed COM
paratively clean.
In corroboration of Freeman's story.
and OF the theory Of the defense that
Feeny had fallen in a fit while going for
bucket of water, and drowned in the
barrel, 1t was proven that a short time
before he went to De Kay's ranch, and
while working at another place, he had
iallen IN a mt and remained unconscious
Tor several minutes; and it was proven
that when his body was lifted from the
barrel the water-bucket was found under
him in the water. There was, of course.
great deal of testimony as to minor de-
tails, and collateral circumstances, but
the foregoing statement exhibits the sal
lent features of the case for the prosecu-
ton and defense, and is sufficient to illus
trate the points to be decided"
WILKES STORY DOUBTED.
''First-As to the contention that the
verdict is not supported by the evidence
we can only say that, while the case. as
presented upon the record before us.
leaves room for grave doubts as to the
truth of the story told by Wilkes, it can
not be held, as matter of law, that the
jury, who not only heard all the minute
details of the evidence, but had the great
advantage of observing the demeanor of
the witnesses on the stand was not war
Tanted in concluding that the guilt of the
d6teLOdUI WAS 6SldDIlSDeQ DGYOn0 q rea-
sonable doubt.
''If Wilkes told the truth, there can be
no question that a cruel and deliberate
murder was committed, and it was for
the jury, in view of all the evidence in
the case, to decide the question of his
credibility. With their conclusion on
this point, we cannot interfere.
THE COURT DID NOT ERR.
''5econd-It is contended that the Su-
perior Court erred in admitting, by way
Of rebuttal of Freeman's teStiomony evil
dence of the mud on the bridge and of
the absence of mud from Wilkes clothes
when he arrived at the home ranch
We think this was clearly
proper evidence in rebuttal, and we do
not think that the general question asked
Wilkes on his direct examination pre-
cluded the proof Of any specific fact in
consistent with the defendants testi-
mony as afterward given.
''Thirtl-It is contended that the Supe-
rior Court erred in sustaining the obiec-
ton of the District Attorney to q question
asked of talesman named Barker, dur
ing his examination on UOiYe dire touch
ING his qualifications TO act as a Juror. 1t
is unnecessary, however, to decide this
tiuestion because Barker was CHALLENGED
;1eremptorily by the defendant, and did
lot sit on the jury, and the Deremptory
challenge so used was not lost, because
the court subsequently allowed him,
ilpon the suggestion of the District Attor-
ney. to make another peremptory chal-
ienge in addition to the number allowed
"Fourth-One of the grounds of de-
fendants motion for new trial was
newly-discovered evidence. The motion
tpon this ground was supported by a
number of affidavits by himself, his