The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1895-11-23
HOLMES SENSATION
attorney Shoemaker Pays $40 for
an Affidavit.
One of the Murderer's Counsel Guilty
of Buying a Witness to Swear
to "a Lie--Arguing Motion
for u New Trial.

philadelphia. Nov. 1S.-The motion
for a new trial In the case of H. H.
Holmes. the famous prisoner, who
stands convicted OF the murder Of
Benz. F. Peitzel, was presented in the
court OF oyer and terminer this morn
Ing before Judge Arnold. Testimony
was begun in support of the motion.
The argument for a new trial. in case
OF convicted murderer, Holmes, was
heard this morning in the criminal
court. Like all the phases of this sin
gular case, this ordinarily routine pro-
cedure furnished a sensation. II was
furnished by Mr.. Shoemaker, one of
Holmes ounse Mr.. Shoemaker pre-
scented an affidavit from a witness pur-
porting to be named Blanche Hannigan.
In that affidavit, the witness swore that
she Kept a cigar store on Callowhill
street near the house where Peitzel was
Killed and that she knew the dead man.
and tina he told her he intended to COM
NIT suicide. District Attorney Graham
asked that h witness be called to the
stand and Mr.. Shoemaker replied that
ne dld not know where she was. Then
MI. Graham called a private detective
ame SWetzler to- the stand. The
detective testified that Shoemaker,
weeks ago, had written out the affidayit
and given him 500 to pay some one to
swear to it. Then Detective Geyer was
called and he testified that Swetzler had
shown him the affidavit before 1T was
signed. Then a woman was called to the
stand VINO said h was the BLANCHE
Hannigan' who signed the affidavit.
she swore that she knew nothing about
the in the affidavit. Her
name instead of being Hannigan, was
Rhea and she is the matron in the
Fourth police district. 1t was at the
suggestion OF Detective Geyer that she
went with Swetzler to Shoemaker and
impersonated Blanche H%annigan.n
Shoemaker gave her $40 and took her
before the notary public she swore
to the statement.
rms astonishing testimony that
seemed TO clearly point to a perjured
aHdaVit, evidently surprised the court
and when Shoemaker attempted to
make some confused statement. the
u suggested to him that his great
est safety lay in silence. Mr., Rotan.
Holme other attorney, stated to the
court that he knew nothing of the afi-
$500 a1aa iiSii AG DeSdl lle argument
for a new trial. The main points of his
reasons for asking for 8. new: trial were
given in these dispatches last week
when application for a new trial was
filed.
AS MI. Rotan proceeded 1t became
evident from the questions of the court
that the application for a new trial
would be refused.
Mr.. Rotan argued for an hour and
nifty minutes and then District Attorney
Graham replied. In his argument, Mr..
Rotan had dwealt upon the inadmis-
stability of evidence of Miss Yoke on the
ground that the commonwealth had not
clearly shown that she was not the pris-
oner's wife and that therefore she was
not a competent witness. Mr.. Graham
reproduced the prisoners letters to the
Willamette, ILL.,, wife, acknowledging the
ceremony of marriage and Their Mr.,
Graham sprung a surprise on Holmes
that perceptibly took him aback. Mr..
Graham put in evidence a record from
the Chicago courts of an application for
a divorce filed by Holmes skins for a
separation from his real wife, who lives
in Gilmerton. N. II. He also produced
an affidavit from this wife that while
making the now famous journey with
Mrs. Peitzel and Miss Yoke, Holmes
came to see her and resumed his re,
lations as a husband with her.