Kansas City journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1897-1928, 1899-03-02
DURING TIL

0 Will i.S HllEusI VI ls>
wAZeD return a verdict Of not
dian 1Scourt conScnes
- nisfy the close of to-day's session
rain Nnounced that he had decided
r,sh,: D oe procedure and argued in
For iotD position with the zeal OF
For M~IaeIorney.
For kAxed the patience Of cour'.
For Nct&p and Witnesses. At no
generally fsihosecution any nearer 4
~. re,rr't was on the opening day
southeas ay. sBrownell related TO the
sotAte expected 10 prove.
he state 10 connect kunkel
inc II his wife has been a
ocfAuc r-afeemptr to oner testimony
ANA the accusation that Mrs.
"'cSb-Was due 10 a~rsenical poison
9 sLGlnistefsd has been unsuc-
lnest evsry.contention set up
AM tulots tnadesense of their the
k;rnthlessiy shattered by the
- yS1kl On ne Cs.rt.
,tg3Sf0r the detenre have stead
vest<3 apAtftade Of placid indirer-
hadH6 the prosecutors efforts /, O
hut e client. and have depended On
/. RITZ Ghwart them This the court
a.s ee1th the aid OF the rules of evil
cod Ne equitable principles Of law.
snsjPCed~ coerstood by the Judge. The
:. Ibis q. the close Of the proceed
...h hen the prosecutors an
s"he hey had no further testi-
OF Ameran rebuttaI. there was not
made byidence Of an admissible ma
ran onlypinion OF the court. that
from ,~bfpriety. be submitted to the
,eration.
,eer an Not Guilty Requested.
nd peed been dismissed. when At
requested the court to in.
y to render Il verdict of not
more q
Jeneas been presented" said Mr..
orSu1onnect the defendant with the
n. kunkel. II is the duty of
q case where the evidence is
ppo to warrant n conviction 10
Annde Jury to return a verdi, Of
VI
hoJpropriety Of the action" said
there Is no doubt. If il is
pat the evidence is not sufficient.
the duty of the court to set
whSsy verdict"
Fr4The Cesrt Agrees.
S2ng the prosecutor. the court then
oWhell. upon what facts DO you
nave a right TO ask for a con-
INK II Is entirely a question for
and not for the court to decide"
sneply.
Z nothing to do with your belief"
4ssthe court, in an emphatic tone.
10 you hold TO be facts upon which
9ecs4 to ask the jury for a verdict
fhelieve II 10 be proper practice"
9ed the prosecutor.
- pnt reasons" was the courts re-
y Il believe ] know what proper
5 u AS well as you do. Give me
facts."
fBrc wneil made no further reply,
tcaused the court 10 remark:
Etne failure of the state to give rea-
t&he court mu. assume that you have
zAsons 10 advance"
~. Mitchell SpeaLs.
e8ftchsli then related the Immediate
netances surrounding the death of
Skunkel and the alleged suspicious
- Nunkel At the time. He said that
D~fooecutton had acted In good faith, and
10y believed that In prosecuting the
A4ant the prosecutors were doing their
! - the public.
80 you In good faith" was the courts
lent, III o claim a verdict of guilty
he evidence presented. ! do not pro-
. TO submit this case TO the jury unless
do"
- Of tho prosecutors suggested that
jury might return a verdict OF murder
enc OF the OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES. for
l4nce. In accordance with the courts
sructionS.
will do nothing of tho kind" replied the
ge. whose choler Was rising. 1T Will
. verdict Of murder in the first degree
The defendant Is guilty of MUIR
In the FIRST degree or he is innocent
guilty"
Accused Of ..FliMAamming."
I. w. Nevison and Judge Norton deliv-
] snort arc t,ments In support OF MIR.
hers request, the former dealing with
facts In the case n the latter with the
who. he declared. were gully
fimfiamming methods in or
10 get what they called evidence before
{ Jury. In conclusion he challenged
a TO cite one fact. bearing the brand of
0ooce, In support OF their claim that "A
~ had been committed.
I reply Mr.. Brownell said tina no such
ctlce as the court proposed was laid
N In the textbooks and that Il new pro-
ture was being invoked by the court
"a II proposed to determine Il question OF
{ that belonged to the jury.
Court Ii Determined.
10 honor cited n similar procedure
lch had been recorded In an adjoining
lnty In a case where a defendant was
with a criminal assault and in
whs, It was the duty OF the court
n mAn the M outlined.
9. -Ahen declared adjourned until
ftae morning. when counsel
Foreign u cite authorities in support
sng for''s request.
sxecut!,ice at the trial to-day was
.,,,,,oace IL began. and among the
Mind then The vel, was ripp
riAkinE Of the late Mrs. Kunkel. For
muSt It. Ada Kunkel was rrcserr
4. <hsn,syed a tender soiicitude for her
- whom the strain of the past
ds.Ss mas left in4elihlc marks. That
was not called 10 the witness stand
lsed disappointment, TO many. hu; the
ense has been a reservoir Of surprises
the non-appeararce of Ada Is only one
many disappo!ntments the willy attor-
o for Eu,lkel have been responsible
Breed DID Not Salt Mrs. kunkeI.
z. Arthur W. Anderson. who was II wit
for the state. was h first witness
led by the defense this morning. Wit