St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-08

buggy and the innumerable little bands
of witnesses here in relation to the
shots contradict Mr.. Blixt.
Lizzie Maggie, you recollect Mrs
Maggie upon the witness stand; a lady
of the most splendidly refined appear
ance; you could not help but be i'm
pressed with the consummately truth
full character of her testimony i'm
pressed you. l have no doubt as one OIL
the ladies who appeared in this court
room, one of the ladies who stand upon
the plane with the peerless Miss Ire
land and the peerless sister, Julia Cling.
You may not have noticed the different
appearances of these witnesses, and
Mrs Maggie, from her appearance, lady
like and gentle, but with perfect com
mand of her mind, SO as to make no
incoherent mistake or bashful mistake,
testified as follows: Between 1855
and $40 heard shot; the first being
louder than the second; about an hour
later Mr.. Erhardt came in the house.
Between the two shots heard a sound
like scream
Here is only slight evidence; here is
only a woman, delicate, a refined
woman, a sensitive woman. Here is
her ear, and she sits in there, in this
room adjacent to this road near by;
here is only her ear to guide you, but
she hears two shots, she thinks, and be-
tween the two sounds she thought she
heard a scream.
Go back in your minds to the first
statement made by Claus A. Blixt.
Contemplate him in making that first
statement, as DESTROYS simply of put
ting it on Harry in accordance with
his bargain with Adry, and in all other
respects combining himself nearly to
the truth, and what does he say? He
says, 1.-THE man who killed Catherine
Cling brought me the body, and told
me to be sure and not leave her until
she is dead. Here in the construction
of perjury it was confined simply to a
change in the personality of the ac-
completes, changing it from the one
who was there to Harry, and the mind
off guard slips out the truth, which is
proved by the testimony of Mrs. Nae
gele. The body of Catherine Cling was
brought to him i'm it's dying throes. He
did not stay with that body until it
was dead. He drove out a mile and
back, and it would not do, and / found
as he says in all his statements and
his testimony, '"That I would drive 1t
back into the town if did not dispose
of it there" And he disposed of it
there by firing into that dying woman's
brain that fatal shot. Close to her head
he put the pistol, instead of where he
testifies to, instead of holding the pis-
tol across his breast and not taking
aim and striking her by luck, as he
testified; and his inability to under
stand how he could have raised that
pistol; he put that pistol close behind
her head until the fire from the pistol
scorched her very hair and flesh, and
burned the skin. You know how far
the fame of pistols burns. 1t is a sci
entific and we'll ascertained fact that
no burn can come from a pistol shot
unless held close to the place where it
is burned, the fire going into the air
space. Right close against the head he
held this pistol; this man who tells
you now, eXcusing himself and trying
to eXtenuate his murder and escape
punishment, he tells you that he did it
in this way, and struck her head by
luck. He burned the hair of the scalp,
and the wound confronts him. Which
will you believe, the laws of God as
shown in the physical condition of
has usurped in the language of the
attorney, the spirit and power of God
to tell the truth?