The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-06-17
FOUND VERDICT
OF NOT GUILTY
MRS. BEv1LAcoUA ACQUITTED
OF THE CHARGE OF MURDER.
General Comment Is to the Effect
That the Jury Was Extremely
observation-disclosures Was Willing
All Along to Enter Plea of Man
slauphter-A Fine of $500 and
Three Months in Jail for Woman
Who Sold Liquor Without a
License.

ny an almost unanimous vote on the
frst ballot and with only two ballots
necessary to secure unanimitN. the
Jury in the Revlacqua murder case
agreed that the woman who killed
Mary Rose, with a revolver she had
been carrying six weeks. was not guilty
in any manner or form.
The jury retired Friday night nt
o'clock. At the opening of court. sat
urlay morning. they came in and. had
Judge Halsey read to them certain or
the law points submitted by the de-
fcndant. At l1.ij they came in with
verdict OF not guilty.
Judge Halsey had charged the jury
particularly against allowing sym
pathy to mould their verdict. The law
makes no distinction in sex and the
jurors should not. he said. He also
warned them against being biased ny
the pathetic scenes witnessed in the
court room. When the verdict was
presented to him. Saturday. the judge
said nothing. except the few formal
words of thanks for their services. but
the expression on his face tended to
indicate that he was not satisfied but
that the jury Needed not his advice.
The contention of the commonwealth
was that Mrs. BevilarQua had carried
"a revolver for a long time. with the
intention of shooting Mrs. Rose: that
she sought out Mrs. Rose this morn
ing. and, picking Il quarrel with her
shot her, while a large cooking stove
separated them: and that after shoot
ing her through the body. she fired two
bnt bn 1lGt M
Indication. being fired while Mrs. Rose
was fleeing through another room,
twenty-one feet from the Kitchen
where the first shot was flred.
The defense was that Mrs. Rose was
always bounding Mrs. Bevilacuua:
that she had assaulted her and threat
cncd to kill her several times; that on
the day of the shooting Mrs. Rose
picked Il quarrel with her and attacked
her with poker. and that Mrs. BeNil-
;cuua only fired when Mrs. ltos" was
about TO strike her.
AS to the subsequent shots. it was
contendcd that under the law they
were all part Of the one act: that there
was no time for cooling of the blood
or reflection between the first and last
shots. and that the last shot was just
as much in sclf-dcfensc as was the
first.
The only eyewitness to the shooting,
Mrs. Anne Morcso Mueta. aged sixteen.
sWore positively that Mrs. Rose was
not attacking Mrs. Bevilacuua when
the first shot was fired. and that Mrs.
Rose did not even have poker in her
hand. The women We're quarroling.
Mrs. Mucta went on to tell. and while
Mrs. Rose was on one side of the stove
and Mrs. BevilacQua on the other,
Mrs. BcvilaCqua drew revolver from
her dress pocket, held it with both
hands. and fired.
Every circumstance" tends to show
that Mrs. Rose fed that while she
was fleeing Mrs. Rcvilacqua fred
again, and that after she sought ref
'lge in the farthest room, Mrs. Rcvil-
acqua followed her. held the revolver
within two feet of her head and sent
a bullet through her brain.
The comment most generally heard
Is that the verdict is Il repetition of
that in the Bilio,t case last week. in
the matter of showing what skillful
lawyers can do
The husband of Mrs. Bcvilacqua.
who was accused of being an Access
sorry, is also freed by this verdict. lie
was released on his own recognizance
until the October sessions, when a vcr-
dict of not guilty will be taken.
Mr.. and Mrs Bevilacuua. with their
three -year-old babe, who SO materially
helped along the defense, went from
the jury room with party of friends.
Mrs. ReVilacqua had to be helped
along. and was taken from the court
house TO her home in Il carriage.
The friends of the slain women We're
deeply chagrined at the jury's finding.
When a proposition was made Thurs
day to enter IA plea of manslaughter
they protested, and their attorneys.
Messrs. Jones and Daniels, consc-
uuently had to decline to acquiesre.
George S. Horn, Cornelius Comegys
and Frank T.. Boyle, attorneys for the
defense, were highly elated over the
verdict. They hoped and worked for
acquittal, but would doubtless have
considered it IA victory If a verdict of
manslaughter was rendered.