The San Francisco call., 1896-11-13
SAVED BY THE
INSANITY PLEA
Mrs. Susie Martin, Who
Killed Her Husband,
-: Acquitted.
Speedy Decision by the Jury
in Judge Wallace's
= Court.
HYsTERIA OF THE PRISONER
Formal Order That She Be Remanded
= TO- the Custody of the Sheriff
Alarmed Her.

W.
The names of the jurors in the case are
as follows: E. P. Sjovall, Joseph 1.
Twohig, NJ. a. Graham, George Lake.
John OiConnor, Matthew Culligap. G. 7
Cheney, j. 2. Flaming, Thomas Finn.
Kohn.
When court opened there was not a yery
large crowd in attendance for the reason
that public interest had subsided because
the acquittal of the defendant was con-
ceded in advance.
Mrs. Martin, the defendant, was dressed
in her usual somber attire, though her
face was greatly flushed, in contrast with
the deadly pallor of her countenance dur
. ing the earlier days of the trial. The
color in the prisoners cheeks, however
wqs. not the hue of health, but rather be.
tokened the elimination OF the excite
ment which trial on charge of murder
would naturally arouse in mind already
distraught by sorrow and misfortune.
pr j. 3. Barrett, who performed the
autopsy on Martins body, escribed the
course of the bullet which inflicted the fatal
wound.
John Hayes, sergeant of police. testified
that he met Jack Martin at the ferry
: about 9 o'clock one morning in last
February. Martin told him that he had
been living with a woman and was think
ing OF taking her fors trip to Stockton.
He also told OF a visit by Mrs. Martin. who
was looking for her husband. She was
Weeping bitterly and said she wanted to
ind her husband. She spoke of her great
love for Martin, though he had left her
without cent or q bite to eat
F.. A part of this testimony was stricken
opt on motion of the District Attorney.
though none of the lawyers seemed to con-
slider it OF Importance to either side
Ned Foster, whose wife is sister of Mrs
OF Mrs. Martin, testified that he knew a
great deai Of the domestic life of the pris-
oner and her husband, whom she killed.
He. said that Martin abused his wife al
most all the time from the date of their
marriage; that Martin earned 500
month for awhile as mem Der of the Fire
Department, and afterward received $3.50
month as deputy County Clerk, yet
did not contribute a cent to the support of
ms wife, but spent his money carousing
with 'hobos" and evil companions, male
and female. This sort of conduct began
While Martin was engaged as a barkeeper
at the Bella Union Theater, and continued
until Martins death.
Mr.: Foster said he knew of a time when
Martin obtained $500 by corrupt political
scheme. about the time he secured his po-
sition in the County Clerks office. The
witness saw the money. 1t was in 500
"Do YOU know how Martin got that
money!" asked Attorney Carroll Cook.
YES"
p. "How did he get it?"
To this question District Attorney
Barnes objected and it was withdrawn.
Mr.. Foster testified that he witnessed
several scenes of trouble between Mr.. and
Mrs. Martin, and had often advised her ss
the sister of his wife to obtain 4 divorce,
but she said she couldn't do it, because
she loved her husband so much.
Counsel for the defense. Thomps pson, de-
clared that they had nothing further to
offer on behalf of the prisoner and Dis
trict Attorney Barnes responded that he
had no additional testimony.
Deputy District Attorney Walter S.
HInkle made the opening argument for
the prosecution. He said that the shoot
ing of Martin by his wife, the prisoner at
the bar was not denied and had been
proved beyond dispute. The only defense
that.h been set up was insanity.
The allegation of insanity, Mr.. Hinkle
said, must be submitted 10 the ANALYSIS
and determination OF the jury under the
instructions of the court.
E. Mr.. HinSle did not vigorously comb bat
the theory of insanity, but simply asked
the jury to account for the presence of the
pistol in Mrs. Martins pocket He said
that the pistol was undoubtedly taken BY
the woman when she left the house with
the intention OF shooting her husband il
he should refuse TO go back to her or to
give her some money. Mr.. Hinkle adj
mitted that Mrs. Martin had been abused
by her husband, but he mildly contended
that for all such cruelty she had ample
opportunities for securing a legal separa-
ton.
"Are bullets to be substituted for the
divorce courts?" asked Mr.. Hinkle, and
With this conundrum he left the case with
"a mo- ah mi.
in his speech.
Attorney Kowalsky addressed the Jury
on behalf of the defense. He painted the
unhappy life of Mrs. Martin, and de-
nounced Martin as monster and brute.
who drove his wife to desperation and in
sanity.
The devotion of the prisoner to her hus-
band 1ring his sickness was extolled, and
Mr.. Kowalsky said that il betokened the
heroism of woman who loved the man
She had married better than she loved her
own life. He said that she had been be-
'oueathed diseased brain and that her in
teilectual powers were inadequate to with
stand the monstrou5 strain that was put
ON it by her husband.
The most cruel thing, Mr.. Kowalsky
said. was the reply that Martin made to
his wife when she appealed to him for food
because she was starving. Then on the
public highway,in in the hearing of strangers,
he scoffingIy told her to resort to brothei
for earning a livelihood
Such words may not justify the killing
'of such a creature as even John +. Martin,
according TO the codes of the books, but
there is law above the law made by
man. Mr.. Kowalsky declared, and this law
he invoked in behalf of his client. He
pictured her as suffering from a frenzy
of insanity at the time she fired the fatal
shot.
Mr.. Kowalsky expressed thankfulness
to the gentlemen connected with the Dis
frlct Attorneys cffice for the courtesy
that had been extended to the defense in
'this. case. He paid tribute to the manly
fairness and devotion to duty of District
Attorney Barnes, and he was sure that
that officer would do what is right. But
this is case which appeals to the man
hood OF every honorable gentleman, and
the gentle men connected with the Dis
trict Attorneys office are subject to that
1eellng the same as the rest of mankind.
Attorney ]. V. Eddy occupied the
greater part of the aftern oon in an elo-
quent argument for the defendant. He
reviewed the testimony of the witnesses.
ana concluded by saying that the killing