Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1900-04-15

| Shall. MlGu.
What did you go out to Fette's
for?"
Friday told me he was to meet q
| friend from Cleveland there"
why did you try to avoid the
police?"
Il didn't know any more than that
they might run me in on general prin-
ciples.'
Mr.. Howard, for a second time, Ques-
toned Mooney about himself, impeach-
ing his character by his own testi-
| mony.
when you were arrested you had q
card in your pocket marked Chap
line and Fourteenth streets, didn't
you?"
mo, sir. Not to my knowledge. .
You did have a pistol?'
Eyes, sir
He said he got it at Uncle Bens'
place and bought ten cartridges at
the same time. He said he got the
gun for self protection as Benwood
Junction was a pretty bad place. Also
admitted he had the red handker-
chief and owned the shoes introduced
in the evidence. 4
John, were you ever arrested I'd
burglary"
81 was never charged with stealth
a dollar in my life"
Mooney then recounted his escaI
from the Ohio penitentiary.
Towards the close of the examin
| ton Mooney stated there was but'o
shot fired from his gun and that w
done within a week previous to
| murder of Mr.. Heryey, and that VI
shot away on the river bank at b
wood.
After several unimportant questid
Mooney was dismissed from t
stand. Court was adjourned until
| o'clock p. m.
The Evening Sessions;
When court convened last evening
the witnesses expected for the defense
had not arrived. The attorneys fol
the State agreed to admit as testimony
that Friday was in Parkersburg or
Monday, February IS doing away with
the necessity of having the witnesses
present. The court also ruled that II
one other witness for the defense, 9
man named Scott. of Elm Grove. coulC
be presented on Monday his evidence
would be admissible.
MIR. Meyers speech.
MIR. Meyer began the argument fol
the State. He stated to the jury in
the outset of his speech that it was not
questions of i'll feeling of the officers
of the court against the prisoners. but
the State of West Virginia against the
two defendants After a short terse
introduction in which he instructed the
jury of the law of the State bearing or
a case of the kind, Mr. Meyer took III
the testimony, giving the bare facts oil
information given and sworn TO. He
spoke of the people in the house who
had seen large man enter the very
room where the murdered man, his
brother and sister were seated. He
spoke of the fact that the large man
who entered the room wore a red hand
kerchief. He then followed the foot
prints in the snow from the Hervey
home to the point near Fette's place
on Caldwell run, where the defendants
were arrested. He told of the people In
the Hervey home who were present on
the night of the murder. who had testi-
fed that they were conscious OF a sec
ond and smaller man being behind the
first man who entered the house.
He then took up the fact of how con-
cisely the two defendants fitted into
the evidence left about the place by
whoever the dastardly crime was com
mitted. He spoke Of the red handker-
chief found on the larger man and the
white one on the smaller one. both OF
which were used as masks such as the
two muTderers at the HerYey home
wore. He also spoke of the exactness
with which the shoes OF the two men
fitted the imprints in the snow and ali
the other minor details OF the evil
dence which he claimed could only
point directly TO the two defendants
He spoke OF the presence Of the two
men in Elm Grove, not only on the
day of the murder, but earlier IN the
week before the day on which the
crime was committed. All this proven
by residents whose characters are above
reproaoh.
Dir. Meyer than took up the chain
OF evidence forged against the two de-
PENDANTS link by link by the witnesses
TOT the CONFERENCE.-The. Al the con-
clusion Mr. Meyer. referring to the cir
cumstances surrounding the crime
said. Don't they fit it? Don't 1T fiji
them"
He then reviewed the evidence oil
reputable witnesses which positively
identified the defendants, Mooney and
Friday, as the men who were at Elm
Grove.
He then took up the attempt to prove
an alibi by the defense He attacked
the characters Of the witnesses intro
duced by the defense TO prove an alibi
He compared the characters of the two
different kinds of witnesses. those OF
the highest character for the State
against the men Of questionable char