The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-06-04

Irresistible impulses and the like. tie
asked that the jury be instructed 10 the
effect that no justification or excuse or
sufficieucy existed by the facts 10 autnor-
ize the reducing of the charge from muir
der 70 manslaughter. though he gave no.
tice that nothing more than verdict Tor
mansIagghter would he asked by the state.
Ronald fer the Defense.
Mr. Ronald, for the defense. replied In
argument 10 show that fun justification
had existed. and that defendant was not
responsible n the time Of the shooting. In
supper; OF Tho claim Of Justification he
quoted from the decision OF Judge Lump
king Of Georgia In the case OF the State
against BlggS. The extract read.
What is the humiliation OF houses or
chattcls 10y fire and faggot compared with
the, destruction OF female innocence rob-
hing woman of that priceless jewel which
leaves her a blasted ruin. with the mourn
ful motto Inscribed upon It's portals; Thy
glory Is departed7' Our sacked habitations
may hc rebuilt, hut who shall repair this
moral desc a,long How many has Ii sent
suddenly. with unbeatable sorrow, to their
graves In what has society "A deeper con-
Germ than in the protection Of female pur-
ityr Dirty dollars will not com
pensate for q breach OF the nuptial vow.
ausi II the wife IS too weak To save herself.
Is 1t not the privilege Of the jury to say
whether the strong arm Of the husband
may not inierpose 20 shield and defend
her from pnllutonT"
Mr. Ronald claimed thar The use q: the
telephone for such purposes rs actuated
S,he.derup constituted an invasion NJ the
home the same as II IL were entered IN
person This remAr kahle claim WAS
tanned by Judge Jacobs in his charge 10
the jury. It created a great stir.
Talking to the Jury.
MIR Hart opened the argument 20 TIE
iurv for the state at 10 o'clock. He rested
over the noon Adjournment, ana AZ 10
took az his speech again. He talked pu-
q. pas; two he reviewed exhaastively
every aetan q the ca.~'. not 4 scrap q
testimony being le, 50 without discussion.
lie laid great stress upon the command
u,eut 'Thou shalt not kin" which he
quoted - rhe trreN 5cahle law Of God and
tre state lie cautioned the Jury that the
,ate was NOT ~ Re decided hr syygl pathy
upon which he anticipated counsel Tor the
defense wosilf make great demands bat
av facts ara Hy law lie helf Up AS a
worthy example the action Of Brutas ne
leg IN exscIiinE Ria son for plotting
treason. ana dveIt long and snpress3ve,y
a~ the aaty ~ the furors toward the ~ ate
~ taHttag the oaths they had taken -
fudge honestly ~ 1he evidence 8ia0cet
BE sstt BE considered the fac.s IN the
case called go- a convection CT murder N
tee 1rss- s gree Sat thar TIE state y Guild
oclY a~A Ser a verdict CO r1aDSi2agateT-
Fge he,a ao go great risiicale the claims
- ihe defense regarding frresgSt iale Tn
ral-ss se} srsce8 taat tae trial had
shown. clearly aAd Coucs1~.e e3y. mat Brad
~ Ms j. r1e.s1v Ssue when IL G!3 The
ki.tBa<. 81. sAti he bat no exteTuation
or ss-i r-,aAatsea o. offer Ter Schelterup's
s,,,s bug tsR; had KS t1sy were they cotEd
.rat and &83 acf :usssfy bis marder, Fer
tse bradley ssts ha Raj no ~osd~ ~ cof1-
aess3HAttez} Gat hs. would have t1e J"ry
g. member JA&t fhev a33 testified I'm Ire
Interests - their father aut necessarily
were pr, iu',ts.l 81 thclv EFFORT - SHIELD
h.u} tr,~n the ]aw, Fle believed There ~2s
smother ss.le g., tAe Ssary ct tae trouble
a ssosv taAg ecs.d never ~ ted because
N wss ssale8 BIS }ar aeaa h2S %. >rHet-
,saruas 81" ctosei w5th STORY .l3 ltiu~~
gralian - how sympathy i saoHetsrnss
wxQue from tagy D. nTeaTranSed es1sssaA