The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-09-24


such statement. He said he burned por-
ton Of Hinshaw's undershirt and had the
remainder washed.
During the coroner's examination did you
.ion in front of your Office at Belleyille,
In which the defendant said all was well
ana y ne kicked kick you soSdrnatursdiy ; and
the yard and talk for half hour, during
which time the defendant frequently
Before the defense could arise to object
the witness emphatically denied any such
meeting. The State based its question
fore the cororer. The defense succeeded in
having the question stricken out, for IL was
not upon evidence given on direct examina-
ton.
On direct examination Mr.. Duncan took
DR.. Strong's evidence before the coroner
and reading from 1t asked If the state
Hinshaw's lower extremties.' was made
in regard to an examination for wounGs.
Dr. Strong replied that II was: The Doc
ton of bruises to the coroner for the reason
that he regarded them at the time as
O. III. Barntjll, of winchester. who. at the
time of the Hinshaw tragedy. was coroner
of Hendricks county and as such conducted
the investigation OF ne case. was wi,nssS ,,
by the defense. not haif-dozen questions
were asked to which objections were not
made. The argument between Mr. duncan.
State, was sherp. The defense wisheu 70
show that the theory of the State that the
coroner worked in behalf OF the aeienSe h hh
opening statement Mr.. Span SAID the
State had received no assistance Whatever
from the coroner. Mr. Duncan was mott
emphatic in his questions. and Mr.. Soaen
was most persistent in his objections MI
Barnhill said he knew Byrnes ana WeosteY,
said to be detectives. They were inter
ested in the case and recommended tnat
post-mortem examination be held. Mt
Barnhill said the body would have 10 oe
taken up upon permission of Hinshaw- Inc
post mortem. PROSECUTOR Gully was ac-
quainted with the facts. Webster. in sug-
costing the post norton. advised that Rim
would get one Byrnes was notified regard
ing the day. Two letters and one telegram
were sent the detectives: Mr.. Barnnin.
Together they went to DIR. Woodlands office
and made arrangements for him to repre-
sent the detectives. On the day OF the POST
norton Mr.. Barnhill received word that
DR.. Woodland could not be present. Mr.
Barnhill said he telegraphed Webster that
the post norton could be postponed, but no
answer was received.
The trend of Mr. Duncans questions was
to show that the State was not represented
at the Investigation and post mortem. ex-
cept by the witness although the prose-
garding the inquiry. -
Mr.. Barnhill also testified regarding his
ss to t Fieteher found BULLET outside
the east door. II was from oz-caLpre
revolver IN the door there was hole;
indicating the ball had passed DOWNWARD
WHO gave you that bullet asked Mr.
Span on cross-examination.
linen THen ali ln'e i'ou know about it is what
Buck Fletcher told your!
what did you do with the razor?'
IL tn Mr.
what did you do with the pillow In evil
4 put it in the County Fair Building
accessible to Mr.. Parker"
1t was the same with the revolver and
pocketbook. Mr.. Barnhill did not see the
undershirt worn by Hfnshaw.
s.Mr. Gully, the prosecutor. made out
list Of these articles. did he not ana asked
He did, but I thought at the time they
rightfully belonged to Mr.; Hinshaw
ost 3. s me examination. which he did.
giving the names Of those present.
The post norton was held at Winches,
ter, then, began MI. spaan' without the
State being represented
THAT is about right"
Mr. Barnhill did not know who paid the
costs Of the post mortenL little or them
falling upon Hendricks county. He did not
know what became of Hinshaw's first
statement. II missing, as alleged He re-
membered Mrs. CORNWALL having resumed,
but he thought her evidence should appear
with the remainder, and. if lost, he did not
know what became of 1t. Hinshaw was
represented at the investigations by law
yers.
Mrs Emma Hamrick was for twenty
seven years resident of Belle
Vile and member of Mr.. Hinshaw's
church. She was acquainted with Hinshaw
and his wife. Their actions were affection-
ate, and she had never heard anything but
good spoken of the defendant previous to
the tragedy. Mrs. Hamrick repeated her
testimony, given while on the stand before.
that Eva Worrell. on the morning of the
tragedy, declined to enter the parsonage,
saying she was going over to where she
saw men standing the night before and see
what she could find. On cross-examination
Mr. Span asked Mrs. Hamrick IL, since
the testimony of Miss Worrell she had not
held conversation with Mrs. Marker, in
which she Mrs Hamrick) said that If she
and Mrs. Marker would go the stand
they could impeaosa the testimony Of Miss
Worrell regarding the remarks concerning
going down to see where the two men
were SEEN" Mrs. Hamrfck would not deny
81, br,f O 2 xro