Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1894-03-15
DAN COUGHLIN FIR
Verdict Of kcQuttaI In the Ce' the ~
CronIn Murder Case. St, al

CHICAGO. ILL.,, March Sat AZ CO
afternoon the jury in the Coughl1n -
came into court with a Verdlct
III JUDGE Tuthill took his place in ~
cbam hers and awaited word from ts~'
jury. a;o+ bod been
reached had spread through the t"ln
buildings like wildfire and soon the cor
ridors were damned with an eager
crowd. 80, sou
The Judge telephoned to the jail &c 1or
the prisoner, and CROWDS uneu tno
stairways anxious for sight OF tne ca
AS the fury filed into court Coug b lin
who sat lust in front of the jury seats,
turned deadly pale and then with ap-
parent effort, Slaughtered up IN his
seat. 1o+ o.,
asked the Court. w.
1--WE have" responded Juror Hols-
man. who had been made foreman.
The fateful document was handed to
the clerk and he read in clear tones:
1--WE, the jury find the defendant,
Daniel Coughlin, not guilty"
AS his words were heard great
shout went up from the crowd IN
high in the air, handker-
chiefs we're waved and cheer after cheer
broke upon the stiff and stately court
room and a mad rush was made for the
door bv those anxious to tell the news
to the crowds without.
Judge Tuthill, his face aflame at the
breach Of court etiquette, demanded
silence, and bailiffs vigorously pounded
for order, but it took a considerable
tipe tor the enthusiasm Of the crowd TO
Judge Tuthill's instructions were
quite long, filling nearly twenty.
five closely typewriter pages. The
instructions we're for the most part
of 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
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
| trial and that evidence touching his in
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 indictments 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 in this case fails to show any mo-
tive or sufficient motive, Oh the part OF
the defendant to commit the crime, then
this is a circumstance in favor of his inno-
cence which the jury ought to consider in
connection with all the other evidence in
arriving at verdict.
The following part Of the instructions
referred to Mrs. Hoertel, whose veraci-
ty was sayagely attacked:
If the jury believes from the evidence
that any witness has wiltully sworn falsely,
then that jury are at liberty to disregard his
Or her entire testimony, except insofar as it
has been orroborated by other and credible
evidence or by facts and circumstances
proved on the trial. The law allo ws the i'm
parchment of a witness by the introduction
of evidence that the witness is a person of
such general bad reputation for truth in the
neighborhood 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 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 the
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 impesched by proof that he
or she has made a statement or statements
out Of court contrary to the testimony given
on the trial. If the jury believe that any
witness who has testified IL the case has
made a 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