The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-10-11
.GOODIN CASE ARGUMENT
JUDGE MORAY FIRST ADMITS THE
TESTIMONY OF WILSON.
Defense Refers scornfully to Van
Malta - Also Speaks of the
Kline Murder.

Argument was commenced in the Crinni-
nal Court yesterday in the case against
Mrs Maud Goodin, who is being tried for
completely in the acid-throwing case in
which DR.. Aimee Haskinson was the vic
tim. Deputy Prosecutor Hadley opened the
argument yesterday morning and was fol-
lowed in the afternoon by Attorney Horn
brook, for the defense. who will conclude
his talk to the jury this morning. He will
be followed by Attorney Blackledge for the
state. This afternoon Attorney John s..
Duncan will make the closing speech for
the accused woman and on Wednesday
morning Mr.. Wiltsie will close for the state.
II Is expected the case will go to the jury
early tomorrow afternoon.
The first thing Judge McCray did yester-
day morning on the adjournment of court
was to change the ruling he had made in
relation to the admissibility of certain tes-
timony the state sought to bring out, while
Charles Wilson was on the witness stand on
Friday evening. Wilson is the man who
lived with Mrs Kline in the Empire block.
IT has been claimed by witnesses for the
defense that Mrs. Kline was very jealous
of this mans alleged attentions to a woman
living on New York street. Friday evening
Judge McCray sustained the objection of
Attorney Duncan that evidence along this
line would not be competent. Yesterday he
decided to admit the testimony, and Wilson
was recalled. He testified that he never had
kept company with any woman on New
York street. and had never heard DR.. Has
kinson's name mentioned prior to the as
sault on her by Mrs. Kline
Attorney Hadley, in his argument for the
state, devoted most of his speech to show
ing what motive Mrs. Goodin would have
for inducing Mrs. Kline to injure Dr. Has
kinson He reviewed the evidence in the
case, placing emphasis on that part of the
testimony that referred to the relations
between Mrs. Goodin and James Van Malta,
the Michigan-street liveryman, of whose at
tentions to DR.. Haskinson the accused
woman is supposed to have been jealous.
Mr.. Hadley declared that the proof of the
defendants guilt does not depend on cir
cumstantial evidence. On the contrary, it
depends on direct evidence, surrounded by
corroborative circumstances. The attorney
pointed out that Mrs. Goodin had not de-
MED her love for Van Malta. He asserted
that Mrs. Kline could have no motive for
duplicating Mrs. Goodin in the crime if she
is not telling the truth to the jury. They
were friends when Mrs. Kline left the En-
pire block in the custody of the police
twelve hours before the confession. They
kissed each other goodbye. Mrs. Kline
could have no reason for turning against
the other woman in day unless she
wanted to tell the truth and have the thing
off her mind. Attorney Hadley said he
could conceive of one committing perjury
to save friend from prison, but he could
not understand how one could commit per-
jury to send that friend to prison The at
torney asserted that the implication of Mrs.
Goodin in the crime does not help Mrs.
Kline There was no inducement for bring
ing the best friend she had into the case
except that she wanted to tell the truth.
Attorney Hornbrook, for the defense, be-
gan by pointing out to the jury the differ
ence between civil and a criminal case.
The jury had come here to try the question
of woman's liberty and she must be
proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The attorney recalled the words of Black
stone, that it is better that ninety and
nine guilty should escape, than that one
innocent should be convicted" Mr.. Horn
brook took up the evidence of the different
witnesses, placing the testimony before the
jury according to the Interpretation of the
defense. You have seen this man Van
Malta on the witness stand" he said, land
noted his bearing as he sat there looking
ITO Hldu III the eye anu Seeking 10 THROW
odium. on the character of the accused
woman" The attorney referred to the
peaceable character of Mrs. Goodin, assert
ing that 1t was improbable that such a
woman would be party to the infamous
crime committed by Lulu Kline. He re-
called the testimony of Mrs. Goodin as to
her relations with Van Malta, and spoke of
the story told by the latter, in which he
charged that Mrs. Goodin had run after
him. The attorney denied that his, client
could be guilty of acts so unwomanly. He
said that Van Natta's own testimony
stamped him as low, mean dog" Mr..
Hornbrook devoted some time to the testi-
mony of Mrs. Kline and to her character
and past life. He referred to the mysterious
murder of her husband at Brightwood sew
eral years ago. He said there are three
colossal facts that stand out to give type
and color to the character of Mrs. Kline.
First, she has admitted that her husband
mysteriously murdered in the daytime
at Brightwood; second, she has admitted
on the witness stand that she has lived in
open adultery with Charles Wilson; third,
she admits she perpetrated the crime on
DIR. HaskinsOn Attorney Hornbrook did
not touch on the motive that Mrs. Kline
may have had for throwing acid on DIR.
Haskinson This phase of the case will be
taken up by Attorney Duncan in his argu-
ment to-day.