The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1892-07-16
CONTINUED ON PAGE Z.
ELLWOOD'S CLOSED
Testimony for the Defense Finished
and Arguments Heard.
THE CASE BEFORE THE JURY.
The Counsel for Ellwood Argue That tho
Identification OF Their Client ~ the
burglar at Humphreys 10 Not Salts
factory-Many Exceptions.

At the 2 o'clock session Of tho Court of
Common Pleas yesterday afternoon the
testimony for the State in the Ellwood
trial was concluded, and the defense
opened their side, with Albert Holt, a
jeweler, who examined the chain and said
it was made of the ordinary mercantile
gold wire.
He had two diamonds In his possession
closely resembling those identified by
Mrs. Hum phrey as belonging to her,
which he as prepared to exhibit. but
the attorney general objected to this, aud
the objection being sustained the counsel
for the defense took exceptions to the
ruling.
John w. Cox testified that he saw OFF,
Ger Luby on Butler avenue on the night
of August "a. about II o'clock. He also
met another man who inquired the way
to Fall River.
The stenographer was sworn. and read
parts OF the testimony OF Mrs. Daniels,
Officer Lpby and DIR. Whitmarsh at the
former trial. to show Disbursements with
their testimony In the present.
John w. Cox was then questioned In
regard to his testimony at the former
trial, and the court adjourned until this
morning.
This morning the defense resumed.
The stenographer was again called upon
and read portions Of testimony given at
the former trial.
James Smith testified that he resided in
Brooklyn, and saw defendant there the last
week in August of last year. He was at
witness house Saturday and Sunday. In
the afternoon of the latter day defendant
took the boat for Troy.
A man named Clifford also saw him
Witness testified that he telegraphed to
the counsel for the defense last Thursday
that he and Clifford were coming to tes-
fifty. Thursday night Clifford told him
he could not come, as his cousin was dead.
The witness was closely cross examined
by the Attorney General. He stated that
the defendant was there two days before
he saw him. He saw him for the first
time on Thursday. He was introduced to
witness as Mr.: Wilson. He thought he
was George Wilson.
The stenograpber then read the testi-
moDy Of Herbert S. Tanner, given at the
former trial, by permission of the Attor-
ner-General. Counsel for TIE defense ex-
planned that Mr.. Tanner had been tele-
grapbed for but had not arrived and the
time.
The testimony thus put in was simply
that OF an expert on the Identification OF
diamonds.
Offlcer Luby testified that he did not
see Mr.. Cox on the night in question.
luis ClOScu Juo ttStlIuOuy lOT Dubu SiucS.
and Mr.. Cannon of Baldwin g. Cannon,
counsel for the defense, commenced his
argument.
On request the court allowed both Of
the lawyers to argue the case.
Mr.. Cannon argued that the Identified
tion of the defendant by the people Of the
house entered, was unsatisfa :tory. When
they were taken into the presence they
had already bsen told that they were ex-
pected to identity the man they saw in
their house.
He also argued that the man who COM
mitted the deed must have been familiar
with the premises. which the defendant,
he claimed. had never been in tho State
until brought here upon requisition.
Mr.. Baldwin explained the difference
between burglary and the simple entering
of n house. He claimed the State had not
proved that the house had bean burglar
izcd. Before he had finished the court
adjourned until 2 o'clock.