Arizona republican., 1899-07-01

drawn from the witness when JudS: Street jnter1ered.
 Then a cow was introduced which ! threatened to have as disastrous an ! effect upon the governments case as another COW had on Chicago. The
 witness was asked if he did not just ] before leaving his home sell the only
 cow and pocket the money. The wit ness replied that he had sold the COW, thereby relieving his wife of burden.
 The animal was dry and useless, but { had to be fed He said, though, tha. he had divided the proceeds of the sale with his wife
 The importance of this COW episode lay in this: The defense had been trying in vain to break in with 3
 story Of the defendants benefactions
 to his New Brunswick family, but had
 uniformly been headed off The bars
 now seemed to have been let down af-
 ter the COW had been driven in, and
 Judge Baker asked again if the witness
 had not altogether given his family
 property of the value of S15,000. Tn
 this way it might ibe shown that the
 defeEGnnt was the principal and suf-
 fering figure in a leg pulling contest covering a period of several years. An objection was made by Mr Morrison, who disavowed any intention to enter into the financial affairs of the IT,, vines, but said he had merely meant to show that the conduct of MT. Irvine was such that he was as much to blame for the separation as his wife On this representation the court sus- tained the objection. but in order 0 keep the record straight the court d. rected Judge Baker to ask the ques- ton and the witness was instructed not to answer t. The jury heard it.
 J. A. R. Irvine was the next and only other witness for the defense who offered any testimony with any bearing upon the case and his testj- mony related principally to com municat.on with his stepmother n New Brunswick.
 Several othsr witnesses testified to the reputation of the defendant in this community and the case was over. all but the arguments, which were opened by Assistant United States Attorney T. D. Bennett in brief. but careful re- view of the testimony. He was fol- l lowed in a powerful plea by Judge Baker and he'by Frank Cox, who witb i h:s customary eIoqusnce appealed O the sympathy o1 the jury | roasted the witnesses for the i governments and excoriated the | New Brunswick party" MT. Nor | rison closed the case in an able lsgaI | 
 The instructions were comprehen- s:ve and one of them following the | anguage of the statute afforded tho jury an opening, if tt had TO other, for l verdict of acqu:ttal. The jury was instructed if it believed that the de- ,endant after a separation of five years ! rom his wife had information which le honestly believed to be true, that lis wife was dead, committed no crime when ha married again Whether he lad committed a crime In continuing lis relation with wife No after he rad learned that wife No. 1 was st.ll tive was left to the jury to figure out.
 The case was submitted shortly af- 'sr 4 o'clock. The verdict was ready ess than four hours later. The de- epdant and Mrs. Irvine No. were in he court room when 1t was an lounced. Mrs: Irvine, who had been elf contained throughout the trial, vas almost hys9arical " tn joy She banked the court, the jury. the law CTS and everybody. "The New Bruns- wick party" was not present. The -erd:ct was not unexpected.