The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1893-07-16

the jury with the honorable intent OF the
prosecution. to wit: That it did not want
Howell convicted if innocent nor was it
DESTROYS Of verdict of guilty if after a
thorough sitting and weighing Of the evil
dence there still existed q reasonable doubt
in the minds of the jurors.
The manner of MIR. Pillsbury was in
great contrast to that of his opponent.
Either he depended upon his own ability
to tear the testimony of the Government
to pieces or he was fully imbued with the
idea that the theory of the defense was a
good one. AT any rate. he assumed no I'M
usual seriousness, but, on the contrary,
seemed disposed to dwell upon some
humorous phase of the endeavor of the
prosecution to convict Howell. and be-
sides getting the jury into very agree
able frame of mind his occasional satire
afforded no little amusement to the audi
tors. of whom there were not too many
present.
Attorney Pillsbury did not spare the
Government witnesses in the least and
was particularly severe upon Special
Agent Harris ana Expert Gumpel. His
idea that Howell was the victim of a con-
spiracy entered into by Matt Jones, Fred
Marsh and others he chung to with per-
tinacity that was intensely positive. He
INDUCED in some structures, too, at the eX-
pense of Mr.. Garter, somewhat to the lat
tPr's annoyance
chief in hand, by assuming that the jury
had obeyed all the instructions of the
court as to the newspaper comments and
be followed up closely by presenting the
responsibility Of the Government and the
scentiousness of the Government
officials by way OF recommendation, as it
were. AS to the fairness of the Govern
ment's position-and Mr.. Garter became
rather dramatic-a verdict of guilty would
not be expected If there vas reasonable
doubt as to Howell's guilt: no, he would
join the counsel for the defense in the
prisoners vindicatiou. To this he added
an enumeration of all that the prisoner
had at stake. viz: Liberty, honor, respect.
esteem, love, wife and family. In con-
slderinR the case the question was not
whether the prisoner had proved his inno-
cence, but whether the Government had
proved his guilt. He would ask the jurors
to put Themselves in the defendants place
and see If. after accompanying Mr.. Garter
all through the evidence, Howell had
acted like an innocent man.
Mr.. Garter then reviewed the evidence
produced against Howell, particularizng
the details of packages of counterfeit coin
sent by Fred Marsh to Howell, and the de-
lection b. Government Agent Harris and
Sheriff Cunningham, with the incidents of
the marking Of he spurious pieces for the
purpose of ultimate detection. and the
Howell. as alleged. upon different per-
sons. Did Howell act like an innocent
man In receiving the packages? Would
Matt Jones, If he had been guilty, have
left the money in the safe? Would Jones,
If he had known the money was in the
SAFE have allowed his wife to suffer from
the want of money?
Then the D strict Attorney explained
the difference between the practice of the
Federal and the State courts relative to
the admission and effect of the testimony
of an aceompice. In the Federal court
confederation was not needed, but the
jury could take Marsh's statements with
a dependence upon whatever Intrinsic
truth they possessed.
Marsh said OH the stand that he did not
write the letter which the defense say he
did. Where did that letter come from?
Was it sent to Mrs. Howell or to Attorney
Campbell? There was nothing about it to
show that the "Dear Matt" was intended
for Jones, or that the signature Erred"
signfied that Marsh vas the author nor was
it n anywise to be assumed that the initial
III" signified Mr.. Howell In the peculiar
reference made in the letter Mr.. Garter
was firmly convinced that the letter was
a fabrication and counterfeit.
After raking over Witness Hanscom.
Mr.. Garter concluded. saving that he
would not then 60 into the Gumpel evil
dence, but in his closing argument would
reply to any statement made by the attor-
neys on the other side. He briefly re-
viewed the testimony of Murray. Curran
and Moss to show that there was an init
macy between the defendant and Matt
Jones, and then gave way to the defense
As it was getting late in the day MIR.
Pilsbury said he would not undertake to
present the case logically. but would only
outline some of the features. He comp!i-
mented the jurors for the unbiased condi-
ton of their minds. and made the state
ment that he would be perfectly willing
to let the testimony 60 right then to the
jury for their decision as to whether the
guilty one was Jones or Howell, for the
District Attorney had admitted that the
evidence was more In the direction Of in
Grimm ating Jones than the unfortunate
victim of conspiracy then at bar.
The effect of reasonable doubt upon
the jury's decision. Mr.. Plllsburv elabor-