Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-04-04

| on the part Of the defendant to-,
| ward the deceased, or o desire on his part to
be rid OF her for any reason. II the evidence
shows any such acts Of violence or any such
feelings or desires to have existed.
Though the jury should believe from the evil
dence that there was not sufficient cause for
the refusal of the deceased to leave her fathers
house that would not in any manner or degree
justify him in shooting her, and they
believe from the evidence beyond Q reason
able doubt that the defendant maliciously shot
her because che did not go with him Mt his re-
quest then they should find him guilty a. IN
dicted.
JUDGE WILSON'S OBJECTIONS.
Judge Wilson objected TO the first prayer OF
the government because that it was misleading
and also because it left the jury in ig-
norance Of the definition OF malice. He OBJ
misleading In replying to the con-
tentiOn Of the government that no evidence
had been offered by the defense to show self
defense, he said he did not think this was the
proper time or place to argue that point.
His honor said that he would like to be more
fully informed on that point 1t seemed to
him that the plea of the defense was one OF con-
fession and avoidance. They trst denied that
the defendant killed the deceased and they
then claimed that If he did do it 1t was done
accidentally or in self defense.
Judge Wilson said that they contended that
it vas not established that the ball which
killed Mrs. Schneider was fired from the de-
PENDANTS pistol. and II it was the pistol was
fired in the defendants defense; Therefore,
in either event, they claimed that the jury
could not convict
, The court stated that II seemed to him that
the contention was in the line OF the old In
dian trade, Tails / win. heads you lose." The
dele claimed through the prayer in quss
hred the shot they should acquit, and IL
they found that the defendant did fire the shot,
but were in doubt as to his intent, they should
also acquit It seemed to him the plea of tho
the deceased was killed by Frank Hamlink or
that she WAS killed by the defendant while act
Ing IN his own defense.
Judge Wilson commended, however, the
prayer afked, the 9Th, was as definite as Ian
guase could put it, and that they had right
THE COURTS DECISION.
The court then passed upon the prayers.
He allowed the first, as to the Jury presuming
the defendant innocent until proven guilty be-
yond reasonable doubt. The second he re-
fused, because in defining a reasona-
BILE doubt the prayor was merely q
statement Of several different definitions Of
the term reasonable doubt. The third, which
defined murder, was refused because the dem
milton was not essential and because it
did not correctly define it. The concluding
paragraph was also the same as that of the
second prayer. The fourth was refused because
it was a mere abstract proposition and might
tend to mislead the jury. The fifth, sixth and
seventh he passed over for the time. The
eighth was refused for the reason already mem
noned. The ninth was granted. The tenth,
addressed to the matter of dying declaration,
was refused because it related to different por-
tions OF the evidence, and because it might
mlslead the jury. The eleventh was
refused because it had the same vice as the
eighth. The twelfth was refused because 1t
was addressed to each and every Juror. The
thirteenth was bad because it was addressed to
a segregate portion Of the evidence. and be-
cause on the whole it would be misleading
to the jury. The fourteenth, whilst it
contained propositions which were correct,
was misleading. In his charge to the Jury,
however, he would instruct to practically the
same effect. The two asked by the government
he would grant.
Judge Wilson then noted an exception in
every instance to the overruling of their excep-
tions and also to the granting Of the govern |
ments prayer.
The court then, at 1885, took a recess until
o'clock.
AFTER RECESS.
After recess, the court stated that in the mat
ter Of the fifth, sixth and seventh prayers Of
fered by the defense he would grant them il
slightly modified. That is. he would instruct
the jury that II thev believed Mrs. Schneider was
suot Dg the ueIenO6nt Accluentaily ne should be
convicted Of mansIaughter. Both the defense
and the prosecution then offered an additional
prayer on the subject Of self-defense. his honor
stating that he would incorporate the principle
in his charge.
= The court here suggested that it would be
well to limit the time to be consumed in the
arguments. but Judge Wilson said he hoped
that no limit be placed.
District attorney-Can you not state a limit,
Judge Wilson?
Judge wilson-well. a day apiece then.
The cOurt-A dav for each speaker?
Judge Wilfon-Yes, sir.
District attorney-Why not say three days
altogether?
The Court will say that will give until
O'Clock Thursday afternoon for the arguments,
the time to be divided between counsel.
Judge Wilson, will note an exception then,
your honor, to the limitation.
Mr. cLAaErr's ARGUMENT.
The jury was then brought in, and Mr..
Howard Clagett began the opening address for
the government. at 1:50 o'clock.
Gentlemen of the jury" said Mr.. Clagett,
what does Annie mean? 4 love you"
Love, he said, made an earthly para
disc of this world. But what did it
mean to the defendant? Nothing, now,
Annie could hear only the whispers of the
angels She was gone from this world and her
taking off was due alone to the defendant
to him who had sworn before heaven
and man to keep and love her. life
had been taken, spirit had passed away, and
the indictment found against him declared that
the defendant had maliciously murdered that
life.
Judge Wilson interrupted Mr. CIagett to note
an exception to the speakers language but the
court refused to allow it on the ground that he
had No right to except.
Resuming. Mr.. Clagett said the case was not
that OF Hamlink agt. Schneider 1t was the
government of the United States against one
who had wronged the law and wronged society.
No one denied that Amanda Schneider on
the 3lst of January received three pistol
balls In her frail body. or that she died on the
following Saturday. The defendant and the
deceased were husband and wife. Married
recently and without the consent of
their parents. The wife was taken
home and given q roof to shelter
her. Her husband was allowed after a while to
share that roof with her. But from that time
until she was laid to rest in Oak Hill cemetery
she knew no happiness. The murder was
HORRIBLE THING IN EVERY WAY
During Mr.. Clagett's remarks, especially
where he referred to the defendants acts the
latter sat with one leg thrown across the other
his hands clasped in his lap, with his eyes fixed
upon the speaker, immovable.
Columbia Fire Insurance Onicers.
At the annual meeting OF the stockholders OF