The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1897-09-30
MRS. PLEVA GUILTY.
SHE DID KILL HER HUSBAND BY
POISON.
A NEW TRIAL rs DENIED HER.
It Being Not Granted Mrs. P1eva Must
Spend the Rest of Her Days in
waupun State Prison-she
Spends an Awful Night.

After five hours of deliberation on
the evidence presented in the Pleva
murder case the jury returned at 1890
o'clock p. N. Monday evening and rem
dered a verdict Of guilty of murder in
the first degree.
The court room was filed after the
usual supper hour by an expectant
crowd. which was drawn together out
of curiosity. There was the usual low
hum among the spectators, while
among the court officials there was a
general discussion of the merits of the
case, interspersed occasionally with a
short glance at some of the evening
papers. Some surprise was manifested
that the jury should remain out SO
long. At last the ominous rap came
on the jury room door. Bailiff Pacey
stepped inside and asked: j" Gentle
men. have you agreed on your YER
dict?" What reply came back can
be surmised, for the bailitf stepped out
and requested the sheriff to notify
Judge Fish and the attorney for the
defense that they we're wanted. They
were in waiting at the hotel and re-
sponded Immediately to the call.
When Judge Fish had mounted the
bench Clerk Slosson stepped forward
and asked, Gentlemen, have you
agreed on your verdict 2"
| We have" replied Foreman Will
liam Middlecamp and he arose and
handed a small slip of paper to the
clerk.
For moment the clerk looked the
paper over and then read in substance:
9 We, the jury, find Maria Pleva guilty
of murder in the first degree as set
forth in the information.
Gentlemen" queried the clerk,
/" Was this and is this your verdict2'
It u.s." came the reply.
so say you all, gentlemen 2" again
asked the clerk.
We d." came from the twelve
voices in unison.
During the time of this proceeding
there was hush all over the court
room. Mrs. Pleva did not, of course,
understand the meaning Of all this and
she remained altogether motionless
throughout There was no change in
her countenance from that which had
characterized her during the trial.
When the jury had been thanked for
services and dismissed from further
consideration of the case, Attorney
Lloyd at once asked for stay of pro-
ceedings and entered a motion for a
new trial. This was denied and Mrs.
Pleva was remanded to Jail.
1t was an awful night Mrs. Pleva
spent at the Jail. She did not realize
all the meaning of what the jury had
said until she got back in her cell, and
then there was no one to tell her. She
somehow seemed to CLEAN from the ex-
pressions on the faces of her attendants
that the trial had gone against her and
that she must suffer punishment for the
most henous crime known to- the stat
ute books. Then she broke down COM
pletely and spent the entire night in a
state closely bordering upon the in
sane. She walled and wept by turns
and spent much of the night in prayer.
just what she said or seemed most to
dwell upon, of course, could not be told
by the officials. No word of sympathy
could reach her from them, though in
common with many others they felt it
keenly.
1t will be terribly hard day for the
poor woman when she must be seDa-
rated from her loving children. They
have been her constant companions,
and the bond between her and them
has always seemed to be that of the
strongest of love. It is believed this
separation has in it the greatest sting
of the entire trouble, and that most of
Mrs. Pleva's trouble lies in the fact
that the separation is certain to come
and that it must be forever.
There is but one sentence which can
be given one convicted of murder in
the first degree, and that is imprison-
ment for life. It is believed by those
who have followed the case carefully,
that there is little probability of new
trial being granted, SO that Mrs. Pleva
will probably receive and begin upon
her sentence in the next day or two.
Saturday Afternoon Session
District Attorney Buckmaster in his
argument said that he wanted to be
perfectly fair. A defendant comes
into court with the presumption of
innocence in his favor and it is incum-
bent on the state TO prove the guilt.
In murder cases the state must prove
| that person is dead, that he died by
| foul means, and that the defendant
accused committed the deed, and that
there was a motive for committing it