El Paso daily herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1881-1901, 1899-07-06
Price Bros. GrOcerS
A NOTEWORTHY DECISION.
CONTINUED from 9th page.)
PHONE Ia.

and declined to do anything for him
until other physicians were called In.
The defendant, his wife, seems to have
known, according TO her own state
ment, of his being wounded ABOUT DAY
light on the morning of the DAY above
stated. She seems to have been the
ouly person who was in the house
where she and her husband were living
ON the night Of the day preceding this
discovery of his wound. There Is no
evidence whatever showing, or tending
to show, that any other person WAS. or
could have been, in Rich's room on
that night. 1t appears that late In the
AFTERNOON of April 10Th. 1899, tie de-
PENDANT had become very angry with
her husband because she found him on
the railroad track with a lewd woman,
so much so that she gave the woman,
in her own language, "a pair OF black
eyes.' One of the witne: ses before the
court of letters says, that at eleven or
half past eleven O'Clock on the night
already mentioned, defendept was at
the Moctezuma saloon. of which be is
cessful effort to call up by telephone
two of the newspaper offices
afterwards said. OF her own
yolition. in the presence OF witnesses
and one Gustave Moye, that she was
very much displessed with her husband
on account of jealousy, and that the
wanted to publish in the Ell Paso papers
a notice to the effect of prohibiting her
husband to dispose of the property un-
der his management, because 1t WAS
hers. and that this was the reason she
called by telephone Defendant admits
that she WAS at the Moctezuma saloon,
but says it was at an earlier hour, and
she further admits that she wanted
reporter. It is in evidence that she
took two drinks of beer at the saloon,
one about 1880 p. N. and another some
where between 9 and II O'Clock p. %.
She claims to have gone to he'd about
10 o'clock D. M, and that her husband
had previously gone out, and that she
did not see any more of him until she
saw him the next morning. She says
she laid awake until probably o'clock
aud did not hear her husband enter
evidence taken in Juarez before the
court of letters that she was
disinclined to let persons 60
into the room on the mornlng of the
9th. She says her husband told her
that the shooting was an accident and
to let no one know anything about it.
When Rosemond came ap about =
O'Clock she did not ask him to come in,
out Rich, hearing Rosemond's voice,
She told the Chinese servant not to
come in, that Rich was drunk. Rose
mond was Rich's principal clerk and
promised partner. One of the witnesses
before the court of letters, q citizen of
Juarez and a close neigh Dor of the
Rich's, says, that on the 9th Of April,
at $50 a. NJ, he awake in his Bad and
heard in 1.-THE Rlch's rooms q cry as
an exclamation of pain followed by the
noise as of body that fell, which was
undoubtedly the cause of mis- awaken
ing and having kept very late hours
the preceding night, went back to
sleep again Toe witness Rosemond
testified before the Mexican court of
letters and was also called by the
plaintiff and testified before the COM
missioner, and as his testimo-
ny is su bstantially the same on both
occasions, it will be hereafter referred
to.
"The theory that the wound receiv-
ed by Rich was accidental, which is
assumed and endeavored to be main
tanned by the defendant, seems to be
untenable. The shooting, if acciden-
tai, must have been done with some
sort of firearm, and no good reason
appears why it should not have been
found. If the defendant really did
shoot her husband, concerning which F!
express no opinioD) no person was so
much Interested as she in cOncealing
the instrument used, and no one had |
equal opportunities with her for it's |
conceaiment. She says that her hus-
band gave as a reason for wishing the |
accid emit concealed, that if it became |
known he would be placed in confne-
ment (using some sort of unpronounce
able and unusual word which l never
heard before). 1t does not appear
that the Mexican law requires the i'm
prisonment of q man shot by acct dent.
1t would be very unreasonable ana
unjust law, and ought to be shown be-