The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-11-21
A SENSATIONAL CHARGE


Philadelphia, Nov. 1S.-The Holmes
case took another sensational turn today
In open court the senior counsel for the
defense, VIM. A. Shoemaker, was charged
with manufacturing evidence in behalf
of the alleged multi-murderer by bribine
a woman who knew nothing of the case
| to swear in his favor.
Today had been fixed for the argument
of a motion for a new trial for Holmes
and Judge Arnold, who presided durine
the trial of two weeks ago, which re
suited in the conviction of Holmes fol
the murder of B. F. Peitzel, was Joined
by Judges Thayer and Wilson, sitting as
the court en- banc. The proceedings
were begun by Mr.. Shoemaker, who
asked that argument be postponed. He
urged that since the verdict had been
rendered the defense had come into pos.
session of new information and addition.
al clues of vital Importance to the case
and which would result in Holmes ac-
quittal. Subsequent to the trial, he con
| tinued, they had obtained information
sof person who had known Peitzel when
he lived at 1916 Callowhill street This
person, Blanche A. Hannigan, had made
| affidavit in substance as follows:
In August, 1894, she kept cigar store
at 1899 Callowhill street and had known
and talked with Peitzel, then known as
Perry. On August 20, in her store, she
| told him she would have to leave the
store and visit dying friend, whereupon
he spoke of the uncertainties of life, say
| ing he had more trouble than anyone
would suppose and that he would not
care if it was him that was dying instead
| of her friend. He spoke of his many
troubles and added that "the end would
come soon, as he could not stand it much
longer"
Besides this new testimony, Shoema-
| ker went ON, there were many other clues
| to be run down, some of which had come
| to their knowledge as late as last Sat
urday.
District Attorney Graham asked that
| before this application be passed upon,
| Mrs. Hannigan be called to the stand.
Mr.. Rotan, who is associated with Shoe
| maker, replied that they had been un-
able to find her; that the affidavit had
been procured by John Sweckler, a de-
tective, and that counsel would not per.
NIT her to testify until they had an OPP
portunity to examine her privately and
sift the truth of her statement. In re-
sponse to questions from the court, Mr..
Shoemaker then said that the affidavit
had been written by himself at the die
tation of Mrs. Hannigan.
Mr.. Graham said it became his duty to
make painful declaration.
During the early part of the recent trial
he had received information that efforts
had been made to procure false testimony
by bribery. Subsequently he learned
that the efforts were being prosecuted to
that end. Thereupon he sent for the
person thus employed to furnish evidence
and she was in court at the present time
Il will produce her and show that she
was employed by Mr.. Shoemaker; that
she was taken to his Office and questioned
that she said she knew nothing about the
case and the attorney told her that was
all right, and that she was induced upon
the payment to her of $40 to sign the
affidavit, which had already been pre-
pared"
In support of this statement by Mr.
Graham, Detective Geyer being sworn
testified that during the trial he was call
ed upon by John Sweckler, who said that
Mr.. Shoemaker has asked him to pro
cure a woman who lived around Thir
teenth and Callowhill or Vine streets
who would swear to certain facts. The
next day Sweckler again called and show.
ed him the typewriter affidavit. This
was before the woman had been looked
for.
Mr.. Geyer submitted the matter to the
district attorney and on his advice, after
the trial Geyer procured the woman. lie