The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1899-09-14

tHt nTSb IetttT W thc uubo VI thc
man who stole the dog. Although
there are 100000 persons In Chicago
whose names begin with ID, had
no difficulty in coming to the con-
clusion that the particular ID who
stole the dog was the scoundrel
now on trial. The reason i came
to this conclusion was that he used
to wear red necktie, and / dis
like any man who wears a red
necktie. Also i attach great i'm
portance to the fact that the letter
D, which is the first letter in his
name, is also the first letter in
Dog thus proving that he stole
the dog. profound sensation.) In
conclusion 1 would like to request
the court to bring in a verdict of
guilty"
The Court-"We will now have
some expert testimony"
First Expert-"Your honor, l
never saw the prisoner before and
l had no personal acquaintance
with the dog, but l am convinced
that he stole the dog, and 1 will tell
you why. You know, of course,
that another man has confessed to
stealing the dog. My theory, evolv-
ed after much thought, is that the
man who has confessed did not
steal the dog at all, but that the
dog was stolen by the defendant,
who had disguised himself so as to
resemble the man who has con-
fessed. Great sensation,) There
seems to be a universal admission
that the man who stole the dog
was brunette. Some people claim
that this fact points to the inno-
cence of the defendant, who is a
blonde; but my theory is that the
defendant dyed his hair and
whiskers 30 as to cause them to
resemble the hair and whiskers of
certain innocent man, then he
borrowed suit of the innocent
mans clothes and went and stole
the dog, and the resemblance was
so perfect that even the innocent
man was deceived. The innocent
man thought that he, and not the
defendant, had stolen the dog; 80
he confessed and then ran away.
But / am here to save him in spite
of his confession. | MAINTAIN that
if this defendant were to dye his
hair and whiskers and put on
suit ofclothes belonging to the man
who has confessed to stealing the
dog, then to any one short dis
tance away he would bear strik-
ing resemblance to the man who
has confessed. Therefore the dog
was stolen not by the man who has
confessed, but by this Infamous de-
fendant cleverly disguised to re-
semble the man " no has confessed"
The Court-"Then you think he
is guilty? ?"
Expert Witness-"Ifthere is any.
thing in my theory it is simply i'm
possible for him to be innocent"
The Court--"Much obliged. Call
the next Witness"
Next Witness-"I would like to
state to the court that the defend
ant is not very well liked down in
our neighborhood, where he form
erly resided, and if the court will
only convict him it will he Il dis
tinct personal favor to several of
u.s."
The Court-"Do you think he is
guilty?"
Next Witness--"I haven't the
slightest doubt of it. Neither has
my wife. ! have been convinced
of lis guilt ever since l heard him
say one morning, Il have something
TO DO this afternoon 1t Is evident
to my mind that when he said, Il
have something to do this after
noon,' he meant, Il am going to
steal dog this afternoon" (Sen-
sation.)
The Court--"Then you are quite
sure that he did steal the dog 2"
Next Witness-"Of course"
Court-"Are there any other wit
nesses ?"
Prisoner" / have several wit
nesses here who saw the other man
steal the dog. I can prove that at
the time of the stealing / was ten
miles away, attending picnic. /
can prove, also, that I didn't need
dog; that l never liked dogs; that
/ had no earthly motive in stealing
dog, and that from the time of
my first accusation 1 have consis-
tently and empbatically denied
any knowledge of this crime"
The Court-"Well, l don't see
that the dog has anything to do
with the case. I'll sentence Won to