The Minneapolis journal., 1901-02-16

Ex-Coroner Henry S. Nelson produced
the sensation of the afternoon in the
Hamilton trial Called by the state in
rebuttal, he testified that A. NJ Barbe,
the defense's star witness, was drunk the
night Of the tragedy, and that Dr. Muir
ray was away from Hamilton and Rooney
for at least ten minutes-thus contradict
Ing Murray's testimony that he was with
Hamilton every minute after he arrived.
Court did not sit this morning in the
Hamilton case on account of Judge Rus
sells funeral
The trial was resumed at 2-o'clock, with
the state prepared to bring in rebuttaI
testimony confidently counted on by the
prosecuting attorneys to remove any doubt
in the minds of the jury as to the de-
fendant's guilt, if not as charged in the
indictment, at least Of manslaughter in
a greater or less degree.
The state, of course, is looking for no
compromise verdict in this case. It's po-
sltion on that score has been plain all
along. 1t wants the jury to go the limit
Mr.. Boardman declared at the outset that
Hamilton had deliberately, with malice
aforethought, murdered his victim with
the lust for blood upon him, or language
to that effect.
The prosecuting attorney assured the
jury that they would not need to waste
much time with the evidence-the state
he declared, would make out a plain case
against the defendant. He then intimat-
ed that the jury would be~satisfied as to
Hamilton's guilt before the evidence was
all in. To make assurance doubly sure .
and as last resort in case there was any
lingering uncertainty with the jury as TO
where to fasten the crime, Rooney. the
ex-patrolman, was to tell of the confess
sion.
Rooney the States Star.
The states case was not very strong
up to Rooney's appearance Out of that
mass Of evidence from witnesses who
had no clear or connected idea of what
happened, Rooney proved to be the star
witness to whom the state pinned it's
faith-the man on whose evidence-saye
for slight corroborative detail from Hill.
the police reporter-the jury will dare. if
at all, say Hamilton is guilty.
The attempt to show generalization was
knocked out when Miss Caroline Slagle
sation Of the trial, was excused because
she might incriminate herseIf-not of the
murder, but Of relation with which the
public was already we'll aware.
The general opinion is that the question
of generalization did not enter into this
case. 1t is continually asserted on all
sides that neither Day or Hamilton ever
really thirsted for each others blood
Nothing was further from the thoughts OF
either, it is maintained. than a killing
Granting that Hamilton killed Day. his
friends. who. as matter of fact. will
listen to no such proposition. insist that
it was done in the heat of the moment
when the defendant-evidence Of which is
not altogether wanting-was roughly SET
upon.
The testimony of Hill. the police re-
porter, would have no significance what
ever. considering Hamilton's frame Of
mind, did it not in a measure bear out
Rooneys story of the confession. Any
thing else that has been shown by the
state in this case cuts absolutely no figure
so far as it has any direct bearing on the
question: "Who killed Day?"
To. Offset Rooney and Hill.
The defense has offset the statements
of Rooney and Hill with the equally
strong testimony of DR.. Murray and
Barbe, the travelling man. Murray, who
admits having kept close to Hamilton and
Rooney for fear an over-Zealous' ofnce1
might secure a headquarters confession,
saws Hamilton could not have made the
damaging admission credited to him at
the time Rooney swears to without being
overheard by the former. Murray says
in effect, that Rooney Ihisconstrued what
little Hamilton did say bearing on the
tragedy. He insists that Hamilton simply
said: "If I have done anything wrong,
I am prepared to take the consequences. .
Rooney, he says, made that sentence
sound like: 81 killed him and am pre-
pared to take the consequences"
The jury was strongly Influenced by
what Rooney said, but the apparent effect
of Barbe's testimony on them indicates
that they were far from being convinced
of Hamilton's guilt; that their minds
were still open to conviction.
states Rebutta1 Testimony.
The state planned to bring in Patrol
man Sederberg in rebuttal this after
noon. His testimony may strengthen the
case. He claims to have overheard a part
Of the conversation between Hamilton
and Rooney and may strongly bolster the
states case.
Who else will appear in rebutta1 for
the state is not known. Al ]. Smith
hinted vaguely at surprises" yesterday.
Whatever may be shown, in addition
to what has gone before, it seems prob
able that reasonable doubt as to Ham
ilton's guilt exists in the minds Of the
Jury.
The court will instruct the jury before