The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-11-24
NOT GUILTY OF ONE CHARGE
Sylvester Criteilow, of Homestead, Ac-
Quilted Of Murdaringa Pinkerton.
He Is Yet to Answer for Participation in the
Riot, bat Will Probably Be Released on
Bail-Mr. Fr.ck Questioned.

PITTsBURG, Nov. 22.-The trial of Sylves-
ter Critchlow. charged with murder in con-
nect;on with the Homestead riot. was
brought TO q close this evening by the Jury
to the hour when the court convened there
were not many persons present when the
Jury filed in. The prisoner was not re-
leased. he having yet TO answer the charge
of riot.
When court convened to-day attorney
delivered his address for the de-
tense. He was followed by District Attor-
ney Burlelgh, who closed the case
for the prosecution. During his speech
will give it to you. The defendant claims
that he was not on the mill property that
day. If this is true, why in the name ct
common sense didn't the defense stand on
that linei If this is true, why was all
the time wasted in talking about an armed
invasion Of the sacred soil. Why was the
time taken to argue the rights of laborf IL
Critchlow was not there that day why
need be care in his defense to show who
first fired the shots or anything elsel The
fact tbatitbey went outside of the alibi and
attempted to Justify the murder shows that
they have no faith In their plea of alibi. Ii
be Was not there that day Why need be
care who commenced the trouble OF who
owned the pIopertyi If he was rot there
he clearly is not guilty. and were this plea
OF alibi honest. they would stand on it
alone. | say Critch!ow was In the mill
yard when Common was shot. Six Gisin-
terested witnesses swear the defendant was
IN the miil-yard that day with gun. If 1t
was Harrison Critchlow who was In q o
mill-yard THAT day and who, tie defense
say, was mistaken for the defendant, why
did not they produce hims Why did not
they put hun on the stand and let him
swear he was the man who was mistaken
for the defendant Had they done this we
could not have gotten over II 1t would
have ended our case" Mr.. BurleiGh de-
alibi and claimed the witnesses lor the de-
tense who attempted to prove the alibi had
not told the truth.
At tho close of the district attorneys ad-
dress, Mr.. Erwin asked that the defense be
allowed an exception TO the truthfulness OF
the following: THAT the PiDkertons went
under any sheriff OF officer; that Lovejoy
or Potter had any right to enter upon said
property; that the people opposing the
landing were ill-advised; that they ex-
-
and W ask the court to go Charge"
Judge Kennedy began his charge to the
jury at 2:s5. He said: I'm answer tn the
request of the counsel for the defense just
must not take the statements of counsel.
unless these statements be warranted by
the evidence" The court then defined
murder and Its various degrees and what
constituted each of the gradee. Referring
to riot the Judge said: "A riot Is the tn.
muituous Assem- blage of three or more per-
sons for an unia full purp pose, and all persons
who are present and not attempting TO
suppress 1t. Is prima facie Dartlcipant
and q principal. and any one W no joins rhe
rioters after they are assem- led are equally
guilty. There are no aiders or abe ttors. all
are principals and all guilty of the acts of
such riots. When killing is done In pur-
suance of q common design all are guilty of
the murder. If il is in evidence thatthe
rioters had determined to take lite III order
to carry out their object they are ell guilty
of murder in the first degree. Ii the jury
10 satisfied that the defendant took part In
death of I. j. O'Conner. and that IL was
the intent of such rioters to resist the land
ing of these men on the barges TO the
extent of taking life, then be Is guilty OF
murder in the first degree, as are all who
took part in such riot. IT you believe there
was no malice; that the killing was done IN
the heat of combat, then you can convict
him of granddaughter. If you believe these
rioters met to resist this landing but not
to the extent of taking life. a verdict in the
second degree could be rendered" The
court then read the definition of alibi and
the close scrutiny which should be given
to 1t. He said: The defendant IS entitled
to reasonable doubt arising out of the evil
donce submitted, not from anything out
side the case" He closed at 3:25 p. NJ. and
the jury retired. At 6 p. ~. the jury brought
in verdict of acquIttal. Mr. Crltchlow,
however. was held on the charge of riot.
He will probably be granted bail to-mor-
row.
The jury's decision was received without
surprise. Ever aimee the witnesses swore
to on alibi for Critchlow the public has ex-
pected his acaulttsl. and there are not many
tho express dIsapprOval of it. Indeed, in
Pittsburg more comment is heard on tho
mastery management of the defendants
case by HIS attorneys than on the verdict
itself. w. NJ. Erwin, of st. Paul. especially.
has received many CONGRATULATIONS on his
oratorical effort yesterday in behalf of not
only Critcblow, but OF all the Homestead
men now under arrest