The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-02-15
ARGUING THE CASE.
Lawyers Stating Pros and Cons
in the Yesler Trial
uS. White Closes for Mrs. Yesler and
Mr.. Fairfield Begins Summing the
Evidsnes Against Her.

Gvt0onco Against Her
The argument occupied the whole Of
yesterday in the Yesler will case in JUS
tice Humphrey's court room and is likely to
extend through today. Mr.. White COM
pletcd the argument of his motion for dis
missal in the morning, and in the after
noon John Fairfield opened in reply, de-
liverinR powerful speech.
Mr.. White, in resuming his argument.
returned to the point which he had made
during the taking of testimony. that the
complaint charged the felony of the ac-
tuai destruction: that that was the of.
Tense for which Mrs. Yesler was actually
ON trial. and that the crime of misde-
meanor was merged in that of felony. The
mere statement in the com plant that the
ofense was conspiracy did not make it
such. If the conspiracy had not been ex-
ecuted she could have been tried tor that
Offense, but she could now only be tried
for the completed act. He then denied the
existence of evidence to show that Mrs.
Yesler or anybody else had destroyed will,
for according to the statements OF Van
Buren, it was still in existence. He dis
puted the existence of a conspiracy. for
there was no proof of concerted action.
unless it were Mrs. Fay's suspicious about
the blue envelope. The state relied upon the
meetings between Jordan and Mrs. Yesler
and on Van Buren's visits TO her after his
removal from the Yesler house TO prove q
conspiracy, but the fact was that Mrs.
Yesier was sick and Jordan was attending
her professionally. The state must rebut
every presumption Of innocence. Though
he was not defending Jordan. he said there
was not scintilla of evidence that he
ever entered into q conspiracy with any
body. The state sought to show it by an
tnnuendo of Van Buren,, who disgraced
the iliusirious name he bore: he was in
business with Jordan and therefore Jor-
dan was accused of completely with him.
Jordan was not present at any OF the con-
yersations with Van Buren, which he had
related, except the one at which he de-
ssribed Mrs. Yesler as know-nothing Of
q wife. He pointed the contradictions in
Van Buren's statements as to the sex Of
his confederate and said the man had lied
twice, 90 this was no testimony Mt all.
Then he made the claim that. as the
statutes provided no penalty for conspir-
aey. the punishment would have to be
fixed by the Judge under the common law,
and this wound be an unusual punishment,
which was forbidden by the constitution.
The essence of the offense consisted in an
unlawful agreement and combination,
which there was no evidence to show.
The court had violated fundamental
principle of law in admitting the state.
ments Of Van Buren, and Jordan, for the
conspiracy must first be proved, indie
pendent Of the declarations Of the con-
spirators, and no evidence a. to their acts
subsequent to the contamination of the
conspiracy was admissible. Sweep out
Van Buren's statements and there was not
shadow of testimony against Mrs. Yes.
r. 1t was unreasonable to suppose Mrs.
Yesler and Jordan would have gone
to Mrs. eagles house to conspire
when they could have met at the Yesler
house. At the time of these meetings
Mrs. Yesler knew nothing about her
husbands affairs. did not know he had
n will, yet she was accused of conspiring
to get possession of it. The bringing
in Of Mrs. William Lowman's evidence.
be said, was gratuitous Insult to Mrs.
Yesler and its purpose was to cast cloud
on her character; the state should have
shown that Jordan had no occasion to 60
there on professional business at the time.
Mr.. White went on to state that the
court must have no reasonable doubt, not
only that crime has been committed, but
that there has been conspiracy to destroy
Sir. Iesier's will. From the evidence
given II could not even tell whether he
ever had a will, and no evidence had been
given that there had been q conspiracy by
anybody. Then. in order to bind the de-
fendant over, there must be probable cause
To believe her guilty; there must be rea-
sonable ground of suspicion. Now, was
there such a reasonable ground to believe
that. because the will had not been found
Mrs Yesler had taken and DESTROYED il?
Mr.. White continued:
let the court consider the motive, the nature
OF the charge, the failure TO cali the real prose-
cutting witness, J. d. Iowmap, and the other
material witnesses IL there was any man who
knew the facts. IL was Kellogg. the bedselow of
Van Buren,. He.was daily the streets with
Van Buren,; he went 10 kelleher He had been
regarded rs an honorable gentleman up % this
time, bat had been engaged in n very dirty piece
OF business He would not add 10 his other
crimes that of perjury and would not GO on tho
stand. because his evidence would have NC
Quilted VI =. fesler.
Mr.. White went on 10 comment on the
failure of the state TO call the other Wit
nesses spbpmnaed. such rs Harold. Brown.
etc, and said Brown was a hired impecu-
NOUS scoundrel. whom he would prose-
cute for perjury in swearing TO this com.
paint. and was about as contemplate a
piece of humanity as he ever laid ewes on.
lie drew the inference from the failure to
call the other witnesses that their evi.
dence would have favored Ms. Yesler.
and proceeded:
Why was Mr. Iowman not called the tru.fed
agent of Mr. lesler, whom no had lifted out of
the gutter and made rsche He had Just as much
MOTIVE Tor destroying the will Ms Yesier
He never TOOK much interest ia the aisir until
II was silly communicated 10 him that he was
left the yellow block and then he hi, like Q
trou; at - mon egg. Why was not Dr. Annie
Russell called? Because he had right To pre-.
susae her testimony would favor the accused
lie proceeded 10 argue that il was the
outy of the state 10 give its strongest evil
dence NJ the preliminary examination in
order that the accused might not have To
lie IN jail awaiting trial or have 10 employ
counsel unnecessarily. In apparent allu-
sion 10 the speech of f. +. Blaine in the
contempt proceedings he extolled the
power OF Justice courts and referred to Mr.
Blaine a. a scrub lawyer. He claimed that
the warrant had been improviden,lv is.
sued, rs the justice should have examined
the prosecuting witnes. and other Wit
ncsses, ii necessary. Mrs. Yes!er herself
had sworn In her application for the an
poinlmenf OF an administrator that sh-
had no knowledge of a will, and II she had
such knowledge she was perlurer. The