The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1896-06-27
FOR THIRTY YEARS
{ Continued From Fifth Page)

ment of the case, this afiant, believ-
ing that the said paper had been intro
duced in evidence, was about TO exhibit
the same 20 the jury, when an objection
was made 10 his doing so which was sus
tanned by the court, and thereupon this
affiiant at once laid the ss Id paper down
and made no further effort 70 exhibit
the same and made no further comment
thereon That this affiant in no way
stated 20 the jury that there was dam
aging evidence upon the paper, except
as he discussed the blood spot and the
mark made by the poll Of said hatche--
as shown by the evidence In said case.
That during the argument of the case
by this affiant, this affiant did say thai:
there was blood upon the clothing.
blood in the house, vet clothes and other
evidences Of blood, all OF which was
fully sustained by the testimony.
That at no time during his argumen.
did this afiant point his finger to c-A
defendant saying that they alone can
| explain or words Of similar import
That he did not at any time address
/ his argument, or point his finger at the
defendant in that connection, or IN any
| other connection and said''they don't do
| IL. Why don't they. Gentlemen Of the
| jury?" That this affiant al no time in
| bis argument, either directly or ipdi-
| rectly, commented by word or gesture
upon the failure OF the defendant 70 tes-
| tify in the case. That this affiant
never meant % intimate. and did not
| intimate that the defendant refused and
did not dare TO testify IN her own be-
| half
This aff1aGt states that during his
| argument ne did intimate and did state
| that the relations between Leonard and
! Mrs. Leonard were improper, and he
may have used and thinks he did use the
| word Illicit in that connection, but ne
| did not use the language in that con-
| nection stated in the motion and aft
| davttS of the defendant for a new trial.
| In the remarks which he did make, this
affiant vas fully justified by the evil
| dence Of Mrs. Klaus, Maria Hilbert and
| one Of the impeaching witnesses.
This afflant at on time during his ar
| gunent made the statement That pub
| lie sentiment had trailed and scented
out the crime and found the defendant
guilty OF the murder Of H. H. Leonard,
end that the good Of society and public
| sentiment now demanded a verdict OF
| guilty at the hands Of the jury, and that
/
ant guilty OF murder, that then juries
were farce. and that the court house
| had better be torn down and each party
| protect himself; and that the said jury
would be exposed 70 ridicule and dis
| grace by the community and the grea:
throng listening 70 his argument, If they
| did not convict this defendant"
! This afhant did in his argument, say
| IN substance, however, that the evidence
| showing the guilt Of the defendant was
overwhelming and conclusive; that a
| crime had been committed; that there
was practically no question about the
| commission Of the crime, and that al
| OF the evidence pointed with unerring
| certainty 10 the guilt Of the defendant
| and If such a crime could go unpunshed
the community would be disgraced
This affiant during his argument
never said that the defendant was not
a virtuOus woman, but was a prosti-
tUte;" and therefore no objection was
made 10 the use of such language by
this affiant, and no such objection was
| sustained, and 10 such statement was
stricken out from the considerat ton OF
the jury, nor did this affiant therupor
remark: ''Of course, gentlemen. you
viii not consider that, but you know
|
/ That this affiant In commenting upon
the attempt TO prove the good character
of the defendant for peace and virtue
] stated in subs stance that this had been
I attempted by a witness, but they had
| confined ii wholly TO this matter, and
had only gone outside in one instance
| TO prove good character, and in that
| case the cross-examination of the wit
| ness had brought out evidence so disas
trous TO the defendant that they did no.
| attempt TO proceed along that line any
! further, but afterwards wholly confin I'd
trheir testimony on the question OF char
acter, 10 that of peace and quietude.
This aniant further states that in
the argument 70 the jury by this affiant
he did not exhibit the piece Of paper
heretofore mentioned in this affidavit
| to the jury. and upon objection being
made TO the exhibition OF said paper
and said objection being sustained, then
| proceed 10 say: 'I suppose the ruling
Of the court is correct, but would just
| like 10 show you this paper, for there
is enough evidence alone on this little
I paper for you 10 find the defendant
guilty" And this affiant denies tha,
| thereupon the Defendant objected "a
such sta tement. which was by the court
| tNF--A A-S-s ~ " NH NAA- fA--t-AA-esAAN "a
| cepted
That this affiant did not IN addressing
| the jury. use the following language
| Whom did you leave upon guard this
| morning when you left your homes, and
| Il your verdict IS not guilty. that then
! the comment and rid!cule upon the jury
! system IS a Just one
Affiant says that the objections 70
J the portions Of the argument OF this
| affiant s set out IN the motion and
l afIidayits OF the defendant for a
I new trial, on file herein. were not
made as set out therein, and exceptions
i TO the rulings OF the court We're not
/ saved as set out therein but that many
! OF said motions, objcJions and excep-
! tons are made for the first time in the
motion for a new trial and the said afIi-
! davits in support thereof.
". +. STANLEY.
| Subscribed in my presence and sworn
( to before ne this 18th day OF June. \.
! D, 1855.
LUTHCR BURNS.
Notary Pulls.
Ny commission expires April 2. 1889.
The defense alleges that Juror York
| had told his daughter during the trial
and before the verdict was rendered