Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1894-03-29
A VERDICT On GUILTY
RETURNED BY THE JURY IN THB CASE
AGAINST SUE MULVBY.
Enormous Crowds in the Court Room all Of Yes
tsrday-The Defendant Beautiful Prsvari-
Gator Under 0a,h-An Interesting Case.


House an immense crowd Of people,
which filed the Court room as 1t has
very seldom been crowded before, even
when the public interest was aroused
by the most momentous criminal cases
in the history of the county. Not only
was all the space set aside for specta-
tators jammed with an immovable ma IS
of humanity, but they overlooked in
side the rail, overran the Clerks desk,
and crowded the steps leading TO
the judges desk and platform. Many
! of the most prominent men Ia the city
were there TO reVel in the mass OF nasti-
ness brought out in the testimony OF
witnesses, and they hung on with per-
| sistency seldom observed at a religious
revival. When the doors were unlocked
at two o'clock there was such a rush OF
men that one of the heavy double doors
opening to the centre aisle OF the Court
/ room was split, and it is wonder that
/ a number OF persons were not hurt
/ Later in the afternoon one Of the seats
was broken down. Even with all the
/ space in the Court room filed, the out
side corridors were well filed all after
noon with persons unable TO obtain ad-
mission.
The defense was represented by Col.
| w. w. Arnett, Geo. w. Atkinson
C. ?. Flick, while NJ. D. Post assisted
Prosecuting Attorney Howard for the
| State. The jury selected consisted OF
henry Morris, w. b. Paul, Christ. Vie
wig, John Jahnke, Frank E. Mccoy, A.
Wagner, Jos. Cresap, Geo. f. Upde-
graft, w. C. Gill, Geo. NJ. Merchant,
| Bernard Bach and w. J. Elliott. The
evidence adduced was naturally largely
! unfit for publication. That given by
! Miss Cooper, the victim Of Bachman
and the woman on trial, was about what
was adduced at the preliminary exam
ination at the Jail, before Justice Giles
by, and published IN the REGISTER. She
narrated all the details of her acquaint-
ance with Bachman, her troubles,
her repeated visits with RaCh-
man and at his suggestion and
urging to the Mulvey house, in
East Wheeling, what transDired there
and what happened subsequently.
When James Bachman, whose similar
case is set for trial to-day, came on the
stand, brought there by the State, he
swore he did not know the Mulyey wo-
man, or where she lived, had never
been to her house, or met her at any
other house, or had any conversation
with her relative TO Miss Cooper!
When Police Lieutenant Terrill came
| - n Cd rr1ts
sions made TO him by the defend
ant, after her arrest, 10 the presence Of
Justice GIllespy and Prosecuting AttOr-
| ney Howard, the defense strenuOuslY
objected TO the admission of the evil
dence. The point was argued, the
jury being sent out TO the Jail,
and the evidence was excluded by the
Court. In the absence OF the jury, for
the information of the Court, the wit
ness, O0icer Terrill, stated that defend
ant wanted Bachman sent for, after her
arrest, and when he came she said he
was the man who got her into all this
trouble. This evidence was also ex-
cluded, both exclusions being because
Officer Terrll had told her ii would be
best for her TO tell the truth, this ad-
vice being held to be a hope of reward
within the meaning Of the law. The
State here rested its case, and the de-
PENDANT went upon the stand in her
own behalf. She swore she never saw
| Miss Cooper until she saw her in the
jail at the preliminary examination, and
she had never performed an operation
upon her! She further said that Bach
man never came to her house, and that
she had never said he was the man who
got her into trouble. BY an ingenious
series of questions, however, Mr.. How
ard succeeded In eYtorting quite lot of
information from Mrs. Mulvey, to the
great interest and amusement OF the
audience, and despite the efforts OF
counsel for the defense.
In the course Of her examination the
defendant stated and reiterated Ia the
most solemn manner that she did not
know either Miss Cooper or James
Bachman, and in an earnest and dra-
matte manner swOre that neither Of
them had ever been at her house. or
that she had seen them until the pre-
limiuarv examination at the jail. She
also denied that she confessed the main
facts alleged against her TO Lieut.. Ter
rell, Prosecuting Attorney Howard and
Justice Giliespy, and when Mr.. Howard
recounted TO her what she had
said to him and the others, at
the lookup on the daY OF her
arrest, she denied 1t, and in addition
said she was sick and cray" on that
occasion; did not know what she was
saving, and did not remember what she
had said. She was asked to explain
how il Miss Cooper had not been in her
house, how she could have described TO
the Jury, In an accurate manner, the
interior OF the house, the location OF
stand in the bedroom, a drawer In a
stand and the character OF an instrument
kept in that drawer, the defendant hav-
ing been forced TO admit she had such
an instrument in that particular drawer,
and she said she could only account for
the girls statement by ner having passed
the house al some time when
the door was open. She had no
answer. however. 10 the query that even
II the door had beet open the girl could
not have seen an Instrument 10 a stand
drawer. On the point OF her statement
10 Messrs. Howard, Gillespy and Ter
rill that she had received five dollars
from James Bachman, in two payments
Of two dollars and half each, for per-
forming the abortion, the defendant
said she had not said she obtained the
money from James Bachman, but from
Edward Bach, and ii was not In pay
meut for an abortion, but for board.
She did not specify who Edward
Bach" was. She vehementlY denied
that she had led an immoral life
before she was fifteen years OF age and
said she married before she was fifteen.
And yeu married without being q