The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1901-06-19

prove that he had the confidence of his
| employers and of his neighbors. He lived
| his life between his work and his home.
He was one of ten times ten Thousand
men in this community-honest, God fear
| ing, peaceable and respectable. Some time
| in January, 1901, q man named Ihomp-
son said to him he thought Barker had
better talk to his wife about Keller.
Thompson said he had a story to tell, thar
Keller had wronged Mrs. Barker. Barker
tried to get the story from his wife. Sh5
refused to go into details. He had the
highest confidence in his wife. He thought
that if Keller had wronged Mrs. barker
it was not Mrs. Barker's fault. He urged,
entreated and commanded that his wife
tell the story that Thompson had alluded
to-. She said that if Thompson mad told
him SO much he had better tell him all.
For several days he argued with his wife
He passed sleepless nights thinking about
1t. Finally, after the greatest persistence
Mrs. Barker told the story.
Now. then, we expect to prove the
story that Mrs. Barker told. We can
prove that on certain day in April, 1888,
the Rev Mr.. Keller came TO Mrs. Bar
ker's house. She was feeling cold
toward him because some time before
Keller had proposed that they take a
ride
Mr.. Wall got no further Prosecutor
Erwin demanded to know If the story
was to be a provocation for the assault.
.We propose to show" said Mr.. wall,
turning to the Prosecutor and shaking his
hand at him. sthat this certain story was
told to Barker. The truth or falsity OF
that story is not at issue here. We shall
not try to prove it. We will show tnat
certain things were said by Thompson
and that these pictures caused by that
story so worked on Barker's mind that
he became unable to distinguish right
from wrong I contend that that story
was like blow on Barker's mind. 1t
prevented him from distinguishing be-
tween right and wrong. :
"Does the counsel contend that GER
tain story that Mrs Barker told her re-
lations with Mr.. Keller is Justification
for the actions of Barker?" asked Judge
Blair.
| Both men. Van Wrinkle and Wall,
hastened to assert that this was not at
all the case, but Prosecutor Erwin con-
tended that it was, and Judge Blair fin
ally held that the story could not be told
..Do you mean to abridge our right to
| open?" asked Mr.. Wall, hotly.
sNot at ALL replied Judge Blair. i
simply refuse to allow you to go into this
story. Do not go into the Details
81 am glad to be relieved of the bur
denn said Mr. WALL looking at the mo-
| tionless figure of Mr.. Keller.
ID, cd w
| the defendant rose to take the stand it
was observed that his wife furtively
matted nis shoulder with her gloved hand.
He was a little nervous and moved in his
| seat during the first question put by Mr..
Van Wrinkle. He said he was thirty-nine
years old and was married in Brooklyn.
He was employed by the Commercial
Gable Company.
"How long have you known Mr.. Kel-.
| ler?" asked Mr.. Van Winkle.
''Ten years"
'qHow we'll have you known fim?"
| "Slightly until the fall of 1897
Ibid he ever call at your house?"
| eyes, he called on us when we lived in
| Argyle place, Arlington" !"
How long had Mrs. Barker attended
| Mr.. Keller,s mission?"
; Here the Prosecutor interposed an oh
| lection asking what had that to do with
the shooting on February g.
| 'sOn the other hand, your Honor, I want
to show that the story, as told by Mrs.
Barker, was such that, whether it was
true or not, it appeared to him, in his
state of mind, to be corroborated by all
the surrounding facts said Mr.. Van
Winkle
''But, your Honor, the defendants coun-
sci has not attempted to justify this as
sault Yet he wants to ask concerning If
4 there was justification. There was no in
sanity. But he is trying to prove by Mr..
Barker himself that the story was such
as to drive him insane. How can he tes-
lify as to his. own insanity?' said the
/ Prosecutor.
| Mr.. Wall enlarged on Mr.. Van Wrinkles
argument by saying that the question of
/ the truth or the falsity of the story told
/ to Mr.. Barker was not the question, it
was the fact which weighed in his mind
and caused him to do the deed and the de-
fence had right to find out the story
TN overrule the question: said Judge
Blair. because it is inadmissible and
irrelevant
Where did you live in January?' re-
sumed Mr.. Van Winkle turning to Barker.
What has that got to do with the COM
mission of the crime on February 3?'' in
terrupted Mr. Erwin, and the Court over
ruled the question.
When did Mr.. Keller come to your
lhouse-during the time you lived in
/ Laurel placer
/ "Object" said Mr. Erwin.
why" impatiently exclaimed Mr. Van
Winkle, "how can prove this relation
ship without these facts? We are
charged with malice aforethought-'
No, you are not. The words are never
mentioned in the Indictment, and here it
is for you to read" said Mr.. Erwin.
| Mr.. Van Wrinkle continued to put q
series Of questions, all Of which were
ruled out as irrelevant. This angered
him and he made some remark, whereat
Judge Blair quickly informed the lawyer
that he was surprised at some Of the
Questions put
DO you recollect Sunday morning of
the shooting2 Just prior to that did you
! receive some story from your wife
Object, shouted Mr. Erwin.
'0verruled, : said the Court.
Thsn We can't establish the story told