The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-04-14

1
agreement, it was said. Before 10
| o'clock the Jurors had retired for the
night.
Their finding will be reported at
| o'clock this morning. An early agree
| ment was not expected, evidently, by
| Judge Archibald, for he neglected to
make the customary offer to the jury
| to reopen court in the evening to re-
| leve them if they should come to an
| agreement at a reasonably early hour
| The general belief is that the ver-
dict will be murder Of the second de-
| gree, for which the maximum penalty
| is twenty years, with five years and
five months subtracted for good be-
havior.
All OF yesterday was consumed in
| the summing up, Mr.. Quinnan closing
| for the defense with three hour
speech, Mr.. Thomas occupying an hour
and half with the presentation of the
commemorative arguments, and Judge
! Archibald taking up the remaining hour
with his charge.
In opening his address, Mr.. Quinnan
| aptly referred to the event which Good
| Friday commentaries and calling to
mind that it was the anniversary to
the prelude of the birth of a new era
Of love, mercy and charity, made q
fervent appeal to the jury to temper
their consideration with an application
of these virtues.
He laid particular stress on the doc.
trine of reasonable doubt and bespoke
for the defendant the fullest benefits
that can arise from it. He also devot-
ed a good share of his attention to q
| dissection of the commemorative evil
| dence, pointing out the discrepancies
and criticizing the witnesses. Mr.
Quinnan began his address at $50 and
concluded at 1920.
MIR. THOMAS ADDRESS.
Mr.. Thomas began speaking shortly
after court resumed at 1.30, and fin
ished at $40. He contended that Lud-
don was himself to blame for every
thing that led up to the killing; that
| he had murder in his heart from the
time he had the encounter with Powell
till he was laid out senseless after
having killed Rafferty,, and that he die
the deed deliberately, maliciously an6
| with a reckless disregard of conse,
| quences. He wanted to kill somebody
threatened repeatedly to commit mur'
der and finally when he saw himself
about to be arrested, he became des
perate and resolved that while III
could, he would give vent to the mur
der that was in his heart.
Judge Archbald's charge bore ever!
evidence of the most careful prepara
ton. The attorneys on both sides ex
pressed themselves extremely we'll sat
isfied with the presentation the cour
made of their respective theories, an(
Mr. Murphy, who counts this as hi
fifth murder trial, further said it wal
the best charge in a homicide case HI
had ever heard.
First, the court gave a concise and
|, for the most part, originally wordec
definition of murder, manslaughter anC
the doctrine of self defense, and thel
entered upon a discussion of the cas-,
at bar, presenting a careful synopsis
of the evidence and pointing out how
it fitted the thories of either side.
If the defendant attempted to xii
it was as much first degree murder al
if he killed the one intended. II Lud
don had murder in his heart and wa
bent on killing some one at the tim
he killed Rafferty,, he was guilty o
first degree murder.
THEORY OF DRUNKENNESS
The Judge expressed surprise tina
| ctr ho 1oi n
don's drunkenness. "To my mind,
he said, "it was the only excuse 70
much of his conduct. In the eyes o
q drunken man, small unimportan
things appear exaggerated and assum
an undue Importance. The evidenc
/. goes to show that Luddon was in
highly quarrelsome condition. Hardl,
a man he met but what he had a quar-
rel with. This condition was only
natural prelude to the killing"
Speaking of the defendants theory
the judge said: ITO my mind the de
fendant's story is not reasonable, co
herent or probable. The idea that h
had to stay there with a revolver al
hour to hold one unarmed prisoner, i
not natural. This, however, is only m,
view and is not to be accepted by yo
. in preference to your own. If you be
lieve the defendant you must acqui
him. If he had reasonable apprehen
sion of serious bodily harm he had
legal right to shoot. You must not
however, look at the matter through
his eyes, beclouded, as they We're. b.
drink. What seemed right in hi
drunken eyes will not acquit him.
In conclusion the court suggeste
that If the jury believed Luddon wa
guilty, it might start out with the pre-
sumption of second degree murder an
then cast about to see If the evidenc
would warrant raising it to first de
gree or lowering it TO manslaughtel
1T doesn't seem to me-" the court sale
that it was manslaughter There
nothing about it to eliminate malice
1t was the act of a drunken, reckless
quarrelsome man brought to bay"
Mrs. Rafferty,, widow of Luddon'
victim, occupied a seat near the ba
enclosure every day during the tria
and almost every time her dead hus
bands name was mentioned she woul
utter a loud wall and follow 1t with
period Of audible sobbins.
AN OBJECTION ENTERED.
Yesterday afternoon, when MI
Thomas. in his closing address exhib
ited and began to comment upon tn
bullet extracted from Rafferty's dea
body, Mrs. Rafferty, uttered an espe
cially loud wall.
Mr.. Murphy at once called upon MI
Thomas to pause. and speaking to tn
court in a tone that could not be hear
| hv fha iurU annoaincad that ha de