The Indianapolis journal., 1897-01-07
LAST HOPE OF HINSHAW
SUPREME COURT NOW CONSIDERING
THE PREACHERS APPEAL.
Argument Before that Tribunal Yes
terday i'm Behalf of the Husband
Convicted of Wife Murder.

General ketcham. Henry y. Spaan and c. G.
Hadley represented the State while Hin
shaws interests were looked after by John
). Duncan and c. w. Smith, of this city
and Hogate & Clark and James Parker, of
Danville
I. w. Smith began the argument, review
ing the whole history of the celebrated case
and paying some attention to a brief filed
oy MI. hetcham. which. he held, was not a
legitimate argument. He saids
1T is vital point OF the theory of our
case tnat burglars were in that house upon
that night. The State scouts that idea and
says no man was there except Hinshaw
himself; that he murdered his wife and
threw her body out where il was found:
made up a story that showed that Hinshaw
raised this uproar in order to cover up mat
ters. / will take up the evidence for the
defense. Jacob MCGOWAN. two squares or
more west of the parsonage. testified that
his daughter was sick that night: his wife
was away from home with this daughter:
he feared she would die that night and was
passing the night in anticipation of being
called there any moment. He got up and
put wood on the fire. AS he did so, he tes
tilted the clock struck IL. He heard two
men walking past his house. going east to-
ward the parsonage We know that Few
moments after the tragedy was over and
Hinshaw had been carried into his house
the clock struck /.
Mrs. Tincher lived directly across the
street from the parsonage. Hinshaw was
struggling with one of these men opposite
the Tincher gate when he was shot the
second time. The State says that is a
myth; there was nobody shot him but him.
self. 1t will be considered that Hinshaw
was barefooted. Mrs. Tincher heard some
kind of exclamation. but could not catch a
word. Then came a shot, then stiffness,
then the voice of a man crying that he was
hurt. The noise of the scuffiing of feet
showed the presence of other men. MIR.
Tincher's testimony is the same. except
that he did not hear the scufiiing of feet
beforehand.
Directly across the street from the par
sonage. on the north side. was the Corn
wall house. Mrs. Cornwall testifies that
she was awakened by two pistols shots in
quick succession: went TO the door, looked
out and saw a man between Tinchers gate
and the windows i'm front trying to get up.
She testifies that when sne first looked she
saw two other men disappearing toward
the southwest She did say she did not like
10 swear positively but she did tell the
coroner this the next day and showed him
where Hinshaw was and where the men
We're. Miss Althea Cornwall testifies that
she was awakened by the noises. She at
first thinking 1T the voice OF lover who was
going into the street. She, however. went
back and put on her shoes. When she ran
across she found 1t was Hinshaw, who said
that men had come into his house and muir
dered them. He said to her, Don't go for
the doctor: hunt ThirZa. his wife. When
this witness came to the corner of the
house and started around she heard men
running down the street to the south. She
took them to be the burglars running away,
and then had no more fear but went into
the house TO look for Thirza.
MRS. MILLIGAN'S TESTIMONY.
Mrs. Milligan, an old woman, was
awake. heard the pistol shot fired. opened
her door. heard cries and screams about
the parsonage. Then she shut her door and
went back in the house Then she heard
the feet of men running west in that street.
Mrs. Baker. who lived half mile or so
away on the Monrovia road to the south.
bat pioh xyit ha 10
testified that she heard about that time
buggy driven rapidly away. Unless there
is some evidence for the State that legiti-
mately tends TO contradict the statements
of these witnesses, | submit that Mrs.
Tincher heard the feet OF the men. Mrs.
Cornwall heard them run away to the west.
a reasonable hypothesis of innocence mas
not been excluded Not a witness for the
State was in "A position to contradict word
OF the witnesses for the defesse.
THE witnesses for the State were not i'm
a situation TO see the part OF the street In
which these things were taking place. They
say there is one physical fact that does not
depend upon witnesses. that is: that there
was snow on the ground, and If there had
been burglars there they would have LEFT
prints of their feet. We say there was
snow that in smooth moo eye m tae plaee Doee Toeea
they would not leave a track
Eva Worrell. for the State, testifies that
within ten minutes after the shooting she
took lantern and came down along the
fence. over the very ground TO see If there
was a track. and not track was found,
not even Hinshaw's own track. If there
was not enough snow to show the track OF
his bare. warm feet. how could II show the
track of other feet Winstead says ne
went out over the ground after hunting
party and could not find the tracks made
by the preceding party. SO the TACT that
tracks were not found raises no inference
..The State produces two doctors who
state that Mrs. Hinshaw could not TAX
after having received such injuries. we
produce four who state tnat sne Hllght
have been able to talk. The fact that doc
tors disagree shows that nothing Is impos-
sible In injuries 10 the brain;
1.-THE record in this case d1ScloSeS, as We
saw and as we believe. that the trial court
never performed its duty with regard 70 the
motion for new trial; that the 1uage meyer eyer
set himself to the task of performing that
duty He was TO weigh the evidence as the
iury weighed il. and he was TO see whether
or not the evidence satished MIN oeyono
reasonable doubt of the defendants guilt.
IL would have been proper Tor nim 10 nave
considered that the jury had passed
for himself determine whether the ludg-
ment OF his court is going TO be Just Judg-
ment or not.
MR.. HADLEY FOR THE STATE.
Mr. Hadley then spoke Tor the state.
He said i'm substance: The question Is.
Docs the evidence support the Judgment?
your honors will find that the records dis
close state OF dIldlIS tAlotiilc III thc toNh
of BeIlville between the appellant Miss
Allie Ferree and his wife. the natural end
ing of which would be a tragedy. The ap-
pellant sought the society OF this woman
I'm the absence of his wife on different oc-
casons Their reI2 tions were familiar.
confidential and intimate. They were seen
speaking in undertones after the appeiiaht
was wounded. His attentions to her mao
been of such a character as 10 ctuSe 'hs
citizens of that town 10 observe theH ana
TO nut q watch upon them. He had been
seen going to her house at night, az Ia,e
hours Ii may not seem TO the human
mind that this is an adequate motive. III Is
not necessary to show the motlNe. II the
State has shown by its evidence mat the
annelIant murdered his wife, II Is not
necessary as an essential TACT. we 90
know that such relations are more pro-
ductive OF crime than any other reiauoh III
human life.
there were burglars IN the mouse ths't
night is contradicted fully. There Is no
ouestion of the death of Mrs: Hinshaw;
SHOT on the night of Jan. 10. 1885. who ried
al clock on the following morning. That
Che fired the shot herself has never Deen
seriouslT claimed Hinshsw says she did
NOT and he knows. III that shot was not
fired by a burglar the natural conclusion
ia that IL was fired by the appellant II
ia admittcd that the revolver that nred
the shots and made the WOUNDS on nll-
sbaw and his wife was Hinshaws. The
revolver and razor. both kept IN the mouse,
were Uinshaws. She was shot with her
face buried I'm the pillow. Inc powder
stains on the pillow could only nave, oeSu
- ,,,os-ir,cr the revolver down closely