New-York tribune., 1901-06-22
PLEAS OF TIE LAWYERS.
MIR. VAN WINKLE COMPLAINS OF EN-
CLUsION OF MRS. BARKER'S STORY.

Long before the bell on the venerable court
house tolled TO announce the opening hour 'he
trial room was crowded and a hundred or more
tardy persons were in the corridors pleading
with the constables to grant them admittance
MI and Mrs Barker and Miss Germond entered
the courtroom at 1890 Mrs. Barker wore a
gray gown and brown straw hat. and appeared
much less composed than on former days
The Rev Mr.. Keller and number Of clerical
friends reached the courtroom just before the
hearing began. Mr.. Keller. usual, wore his
dark blue spring overcoat. and CROPPED about
with difficulty. He was accompanied by his
counsel Joseph Parker.
A hundred or more women We're present when
Judge Blair entered from his chambers. and the
court crier's Hear ye, Hear ye!' formally an
nounced the opening Of the court. The judge re-
peated that counsel would be limited to an hour
and fifteen minutes in summing up.
MR.. VAN WINKLE'S PLEA
Mr. Van Wrinkle then began his earnest but
fruitless argument He said in part:
Gentlemen. great deal of testimony for the de-
fence has been excluded, and am constrained 20
limit the time in which 20 present the defence 10
you but ] approach this duty with unilinch1iMns M
confidence in our cause The press ana me pupLc pIi
want TO know why this minister was shot by this
defendant We have repeatedly turned to the story
entered an underlined outrage You. Gentlemen
q thlnk-tO
Every man IS entitled TO a fair and impartial
your view as iaymen? If Mr.. Barker believed he
had right TO IRE that shot, even If IN law II was
a matter Of fact IL The story told by MIS- Barker
20 her husband is true then it is a matter OF fact
and the law Of both God and man would excuse
refI,rn a anu yT3c Of guilty If the story is not true
Nr Rar1er = believed ii and it prayed on and af-
fected his mind and he should be excused IN law as
he was undoubtedly insane.
Counsel then addressing two Of the jurors.
said:
sonabie proposition? Mr. Muller, has there been
enough foundation for conviction or TINS man
win vii 81 ms So ocsion o nsn ou say to acqu
Barker would be 10 convict Keller MI heller
tiction viii not exonerate Mr Keller. You may
Mr.. Barker whether the story is true or un-
HIS REASONS NOT TOLD.
Where are his reasons? They have been
cluded. He has not been allowed 10 give them
How can you say what they are? Ho% can You
say they are inadequate? He told Chief Ioien. =
was justified IN rS act; to another that his wife
had been ouJrased and any man wonsd Gone 90 rne
stances He was talking 10 married men-men VINO
know a man who shoots another with intent 70
kin commits great crime He may be punished
man who commits rare commits a greater crime.
He may Re punished with fifteen years imrrison-
ment.
palian: that the Church was not in the contro-
versy. ard had not been assailed. He then
demned the diocesan convention for indorsing
Keller without investigation, and said:
The crime Of Keller made possible through this
womans devotion to her church, was a heinous
Mr. Van winkle took from his pocket an Epis
copal prayer book and was about TO read from il
when Prosecutor Erwin objected. and the court
toned that a minister might be an evil man.
and said the testimony clearly showed that
something did happen in Barker's house in April.
1899 when Keller's visits suddenly ceased. He
then attacked Mr.. Keer's veracity by mention
ing that he denied having borrowed money from
Mrs. Barker, and said he had not repaid $50
when the receipt was in evidence He con-
tinued:
II you ind Mr.. Keller's testimony was not true
N regard to the money transaction. you may draw
other matters. -"
INSANITY PLEA BROUGHT IN.
Counsel then contended that Barker's reason
had been affected by the story Of the outrage
and he was not sane when he met and shot Kel
Ter. He attacked the testimony OF the physi-
Clans that Barker behind Keller when he
fired, and said in ridiculing the evidence on this
point:
fou can buy all the medical testimony you
want, and you know it,"
Mr. Van Wrinkle contended that Barker con-
fronted Keller and faced him when he fired the
SHOT but Keller turned to fee He insisted that
Barker had an insane delusion when he attacked
Keller, and was irresponsible, and added: How
can you say that Barker was not justified when
ne was not allowed TO tell his story?" He said
further that IL he juror he would hold
out for verdict OF not euiIt, ,,,i,bo,,, h.,.,,,
the story Of the justification. He cited the Kevs.
Sickles case. and said:
You can't find jury that ever convicted =