The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1898-08-13
MIR. HowARDs ARGUMENT


The closing argument for the defense
was made by Mr.. Howard. He began
speaking at the morning session Of court
and did not finish until O'Clock In the
afternoon his speech occupying four
tours. Mr.. Howard showed hts COM
FnRnd Of the thousand and. one details
OF the case and made what was uTt-
doubleday q very effective plea 10 the
Jury in behaf OF the defendant.
At the morning session Mt. Howard
devoted considerable time to severe
and unEparing 6enunciaion OF MI. d.
o. Ogden, manager OF the News, VINO
has figured in this case as the principal
prosecuting witness. without whom, as
Mr.. conH said In his speech, Reynolds
would be walking the streets Of Wheel
ing q free man and with no such serious
charge confronting him" Mr.. Howard
spoke with intense fee'ing In his attack
upon the reputation OF Mr.. Ogden Tor
triTth ana veracIty. and in language that
was exceedingly warm consigned him TO
q region that is warmer than this
The speaker doubted the willingness
Of the jury to send u man to states
prison for ten years before civil suit
now Instituted shaa have decided
whether or not the defendant in this
case has been guilty OF using the Guar
antee company's funds for his own pur-
The business that Reynolds started
for the Guarantee and ProYident COM
pnnles is still In effect. and these com
panIes are getting profits from 1t, prohts
that are being used to pay John j. Con-
81 70 help send Reynolds TO the peni-
Tertiary as an embezZler OF money ne
paid out and from which they are now
receiving benefits.
Il was claimed that the Wheeling
checks introduced against the defendant
represent less than the five months sal
airy due him from the company, and as
20 the Washington office the evidence
shows who was TO pay the expense OF
that office.
It was insisted upon that the state
had shown no concealmert on the part
Of Reynolds In any Of the transactions
upon which they would convict him.
And II there was no corcealment there
was no criminal intent and without
criminal intent there can be no verdict
Of guilty.
II is not the state OF West Virginia
that Is prosecuting this case. said Mr..
Howard. The only evidence: Of what
the people want Is through the witness,
Bachman, who tells what neighhor
said, that Ogden was more guilty than
Reynolds" The state OF West Vir-
GINA has not asked NetuaCt OF 8ultty
Ia this case; the prosecuting attorney
Just asked the jury to do It's duty. You
have heard from the states attorney
YOU have heard from the lawyers for the
defense, now you Will hear from H. e.
Ogden and ]. B. SommerviHe, through
their attorney and nIOuthpiece. Are
you to help this company and satisfy
their malice?
continulng, Mr.. Howard denounced
the methods that had been used by the
states prosecuting witnesses, anu
claimed that the defendant had not been
given a fadr opportunity OF bringing pa
pers ard books into the trial that were
needed in his defense. The speaker also
criticised Mr.. Somme;ville for not haV-
ing appeared in court as witness When
summoned by the sheriff.
Referring 10 the charges he had MADE
IN the course OF the trial, Mr.. Howard
said: 81 am responsible for everything
that / have said in the course Of this
trial. have made these charges before
this fury because believe them TO be
true. This defendant Is without MEANS
he has NOT paid me q cent for my ser
vices. have defended him because
believe him to be an innocent man Who
q being persecuted."
Concluding. Mr.. Howard Appealed to
the jury in language that was eloquent,
and said there Is a difference between
the honest prosecution Of criminals anu
di8honaSt persecution.