The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-07-28
CLOSING ARGUMENTS.
Interesting Addresses By Rogers,
Zane. Van Colt and Putnam.


Zane, Van Colt and Putnam.
At the converting of court yesterday
in Judge Cherry's room at the joint
! building, ex-senator Brown and Judge
/ Zane had somewhat of an argument as
10 who was to be permitted 10 close the
! case. The defense having made the mo-
| ton for a discharge of the prisoner, be-
| lieved that it was entitled to the last
argument. Justice Pardee held so. too,
I but said that after the motion had been
/ discussed the whole case might be ar
gued again and the prosecution would
then have a right to conclude the dis
cussion. On this statement of the mat
ter the defense acquiesced.
Attorney Rogers made clear cut
argument.
The defendant stands charged with
the highest crime known to the law"
said he. My contention is that no Of
Tense. if any, at all greater than man
slaughter has been shown. The facts
as disclosed by the evidence. and not
as assumed by Senator Brown. show
that there was no premeditatiOn-nOt
line of the evidence shows premedita-
ton. Benbrook had a right toahe pro
lection of that house. He was in the
place in the commission of no unlawful
act. He was there with young lady
having dined, but Morris went there
as an intruder-he knew where he was
going and he knew what he was going
for. He was not hidden guest. He
knew where the man was he wanted to
see. He went TO room 3 unlimited.
HE used mean and obscene epithet
in the presence OF a lady. What would
you have done and what would the
calm, meek and lOwly Senator Brown
have done under the circumstances?
Benbrook Sought Protection.
But Benbrook went out and sent for
Keene TO bring d revolver, and when
Keene came up he wanted an officer to
secure protection. Keene ordered Nor
ris to leave the place. Why didn't he
leave it? He was there violating the
law
Brown says this defendant was ly-
ing in wait What witness gives evil
dence that even squints of that con-
clusiOn? Brown says he could have
run downstairs. but the law did not
require him to run. The law of the
street, the law of society, the law of
the courts do not require this. His
whole argument is based and legged
upon the assumption that Benbrook
was lying secretly in wait to murder.
Morris was warned against going to
the room l, but with the threat to COM
nit murder upon his lips he rushed in
there where Benbrook was.
How does your honor know that if !
Benbrook had run down stairs or out
side he would not have been followed, |
that this young man. his superior in (
would not have pursued him /
or have sneered at him whenever they |
met or beat him, emboldened by the I
fact that BenbroOk ran? Would not !
every man say that ne was a coward if 4
he ran %
Ray Van Colts Admission.
Mr.. Rogers was followed by Assistant |
County Attorney Ray Van Colt, who |
stated some various legal propositions
in the course of his argument.
"BenbrOok's castle, the place in which
he had a right to be. was room 3, where
Miss Stromberg and Morris We're" said
he. He had no right to remain in
room l. Had he taken the gun and gone
into room 3, ordered Morris out and
then been attacked, he would have had
a perfect right to shoot him down.
The attorneys for the defense looked
up in wonderment when they heard
that. They had considered that the po-
sitiOn of the prosecution was that he
should have run from the building.
But Mr.. Van Colt went on to discuss
what he called the burden of proof. the
principal part of which was the read
ng of an opinion written by Judge
Zane when he was chief justice of the
supreme court, which had some bearing
N this case. Judge Zane did not seem
% relish the opinion. and when he re-
1lied he endeavOred to explain.
Attorney Van Colt maintained that it
vas simply necessary for the prosecu-
ion to show a reasonable cause for
lolding Benbrook. He said that the
defendant had the right to defent,-Sim-
'elf with gun only in the first room,
so. ).
THE duty of your honor" said the
lttorney. with such force that Justice
'ardee seemed displeased. is to deter
nine if a public Offense is committed
hat the defendant is guilty thereof"
Judge Zane's Argument.
Judge Zane told Justice Pardee very
that he had great confidence
n his ability to consider the law and
he facts of the case.
Il have no disposition TO say anything
hat would be offensive to or harass the
mother or relatives of the dead man."
aid he. but the law must be fairly ]
No man can be so bad
hat he have less than justice done
i'm, nor so good that he can ask for
lore. OF course. the burden of proving
revocation is upon the defendant. The c
IVY presumes malice in a killing and d
ne defendant must show just provoca- i
on. If he says that the victim raw
he'd his wife or seduced his daughter +
lat shows provocation. Mr.. Rogers C
laintains that in this case the provo s
alton is sufficient to reduce the crime I
} manslaughter as the very worst that o
IN be charged against the defendant a
Evidence sufficient to hold a man is
he thing, and evidence sufficient to de- S
y man bail is another thing. If your E
)nor says the defendant was not justi- A
I'd, then we say he was so excited fl
lat in the killing there was no deliber- B
len, and bail should be granted. To OF
my defendant ball, the evidence b