Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1894-03-14
DAN COUGHLIN FREE.
Verdict Of ACqulttaI In the Celebrated
CrOnn Murder Case

CrOnIn Murder Case.
CHICAGO, ILL.,, March Sat 4:4O this
afternoon the jury in the Coughlin case
came into court with a verdict of
not guilty.
Judge Tuthill took his place in his
chambers and awaited word from the
jury.
The news that verdict had been
reached had spread through the twin
buildings like Wildfre and soon the COR
ridors were damned with an eager
crowd.
The judge telephoned to the jail for
the prisoner, and crowds lined the
stairways anxious for a sight of the ex-
detective.
AS the jury filed into court Coug h lin
who sat Just in front of the Jury seats,
turned deadly pale and then with APP
parent effort, Strengthened up in his
seat.
"Has the jury reached a verdict?"
asked the Court
eve have" responded Juror Hols-
man, who had been made foreman.
The Hateful document was handed to
the clerk and he read in clear tones:
owe, the jury find the defendant,
Daniel Coughlin, not guilty"
AS his words were heard a great
the courtroom. Hats were thrown
high in the air, handker-
chiefs were waved and cheer after cheer
broke upon the stiff and stately court
room and mad rush was made for the
door by those anxious to tell the news
to the crowds without.
Judge Tuthill, his face afame at the
breach Of court etiquette, demanded
silence, and bailiffS vigorously pounded
for order, but it took q considerable
time for the enthusiasm Of the crowd to
Eubside.
Judge TuthilPs instructions were
quite long, filling nearly twenty
five closely typewriter pages. The
of a general nature, very few of
the specific directions handed in
by the counsel being used. The Court
instructed the jury that it was not in
cumbent upon the defense to introduce
any evidence tending to prove
the innocence of Burke. Cooney
or O'Sullivan, jointly indicted with
Coughlin on the charge of conspiring,
and that the absence of such evidence
must not be construed as evidence of
their guilt and an inference thereby of
the guilt of Coughlin. He reminded
them that the latter was alone upon
nOcence or guilt was alone to be consid-
cred in the formation Of a verdict The
Court then went on:
The jury are instructed that it is not
claimed by the state that there is evidence
tending to show that the defendant, Daniel
COughlin, directly took the life of DR.. Gro
min. 1t is claimed that conspiracy to kill
existed, and that this defendant and the
other defendants named, and other persons
designated in the Indictment as unknown"
were parties to such conspiracy, and that
the purpose of this conspiracy was actually
accomplished on the night of May 4, 1889.
The Court further inStructS YOU that if the
evidence III this case fails to show any mo-
tive, or a sufficient motive, on the part of
the defendant to commit the crime then
this is circumstance in favor Of his inno-
cence which the jury ought to consider in
connection with all the other evidence in
arriving at a verdict
The following part of the instructions
referred to Mrs. HOertel, whose Yeraci-
ty was savagely attacked:
If the jury believes from the evidence
that any witness has wilfully sworn falsely,
then that jury are at liberty to disregard his
or her entire testimony except insofar as it
has been cOrroborated by other and credible
evidence or by facts and circumstances
proved on the trial. The law allows the i'm
parchment of witness by the introduction
of evidence that the witness is a person Of
such general bad reputation for truth in the
neighbour God where he or she resides as that
he or she is unworthy of credit.
The following referred to medical ex-
perts who demanded pay for their evil
dence:
IF the jury believe that any witness or
witnesses, who testified in this case, de-
manded a reward for suppressing alleged
knowledge Of anything testified to, then the
jury should consider the testimony of such
witness or witnesses with the gravest caution
and should take into consideration such
fact, together with all other evidence in Tne
case, in determining the weight if any,
which should be given to the testimony of
such witness or witnesses.
You are instructed that the credit of
witness may be impeached by proof that he
or she has made statement or statements
out Of court contrary to the testimony given
on the trial. If the jury believe that any
witness who has testified in the case has
made statement or statements upon ma
terlal fact in the case out of court, contrary
to the statement or statements made by
such witness on the trial, then these con-
Trajectory statements would tend to i'm
peach such Witness and you would be iusti-
fled in rejecting the testimony of such wit
ness if from all the evidence you believe it
to be true