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

Irresistible lmpulses'' and the like. lie
asked that the jury be instructed To the
effect that no justification or excuse or
suliiciency existed by the facts 10 author
ize the reducing OF the charge from muir
der 20 mansIaughter. though he gave no
iice that nothing more then verdict Tor
manslaaghIpr would be asked by the state.
Ronald for the Defense.
Mr. Ronald, for the defense. replied In
argument to show that full justification
had existed. and that defendant was Tot
responsible AT tile time Of the shooting. In
support OF the claim os justification ne
quoted from the decision of Judge Lump
king Of Georgia in the case OF the State
against Biggs The extract read:
What is the humiliation OF houses or
ehattels by fire and faSgot compared with
The destruction of female Innocence. rob
hing woman Of that priceless jewel which
leaves her a blasted ruln with the mourn
fui motto Inscribed upon its portals Thy
giorg Is iepartcdr' Our sacked habitatIons
may he rebuilt. but who shall repair this
moral desc atjon2 How many has IL sent
suddenly with unhearable sorrow, 20 their
graves. In what has society deeper con-
cs,ru than IN the protection Of female pur-
itye Dirty dollars viii net COM
pensate for a breach OF the nup,iai vow.
and If the wife IS too weak 10 save herself.
IS II not the privilege 81 the jury 10 say
whether the strong arm Of the husband
may not fnterpoSe 10 shield and defend
her from pollutionr''
Mr. Ronald cillnaed that the use OF the
telephone for such purposes rs actuated
S~he.derup constituted an invasion Of tia
home tie s,ame as II II were entered in
person This remarkable claim was sus-
tatned ny Judge Jacobs IN his charge 20
the jury. II created great stir.
Talking tn the Jury.
Mr. Hart oreued the argument 70 the
Jury for the state at 10 O'Clock. He rested
over TIE noo4l adjournment. ana 81 lD
took up his speech again. He talked TN
Ill past two he reviewed extensively
every detail " the caae. rot scrap Of
testimony being ie; So without discussion.
lie lAta great stress upon the command
r.cnt "Than shalt not Kill" whlca he
quoted SIS the irrevoCah.e law % God and
isa state lie cautioned the jury saat the
casa Was nos 20 - decided by sympathy.
upon wh:es hr anticipated counsel for the
defense would make great demands ou.
oy facts ard rs law lie held up as n
worthy example the action of Erutus TIE
etssr in executing ais @on for pio;t:ng
treason ard dwell: hong ana ssupresStvesy
On :he aI;y af The 1uror@ toward the state
In fJdL30E fhe ostas they had taken -
}83Ee s7assttv ~ th% evidence a3tsuvet-
He sa}4 ne considered HE fac.s tn tie
SAsc called tov "a conviction q murder IN
fhe sYsf degree hat that ere state would
e~iy ask fcr verdict % u1anslaa alter.
ae hesi up ~ great vi65cule tie claims
of the defense regarding irresistible ta2-
pulses aH3 sFeaed tsat the trial had
SaoWu -5Haf-v aai coEe3gSsveiy taat Brad
~ wss perfectly Same when he 5,i ire
kt.+Ers 80 S4Is be ha3 10 e&tenuatl0E
or ca1a2eai2t{au . offer FOR Scheidsrups
acts nat thst- 5,83 "a they we're. teey could
res ana ala uNE Justify his TnaFdeT. Fer
gas BRADLEY g-r5s be ha3 TIC words ~ con-
.3esioAgsc0. kut he would have TIE jury
ys--1tcuseer rha: they Aa3 testified IL me
irtnreats ~ fheIr father ant necessarily
were gre t@25,,-i ls .Aet~ EFFORT % sa!s'd
2 =, from she .aw. Fie believed shere wss
Il eats.r ses4e 20 see stCry - tes tTosaie.
= sYary 3hAt vse4sd never ~ to.d. tr~a9sc
s. wAs s~a2fsa seq tae dead h.ss x Srae14
&efap tfe Cso*f5 N5Fh stors "a Illus
sratsoa Of Aow sympathy - s@sg11s times
9runx Gsesz = s@xs ~ lssAEsaI~e4 sffsc1A