The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1902-11-20


curt was crowded, every seat being oc-
cupied, large part Of the audience
beiag ladies. Hundreds of people were
turned away from the doors by the
bailitfs, as the court had instructed them
not to admit more people than could be
seated.
A. P. Olsen, county attorney. made
the opening argument to the jury, com.
mencing at 9:05 Thursday morning. He
made clear statement of the evidence
in the case, going over the testimony of
each witness, and telling WAT each wit.
ness had testified to. He said there was
nothing in the testimony of the wit
nesses indicating that there was any.
thing unusual with the defendant. In
regard to Mrs. Clark's testimony be said
she had not hesitated to stultify herself,
had no tears for the man she loved and
had promised to elope WITH and was
willing to bring reproach and shame
upon herself and family for the sake Of
her husband. He asked, sWas there
a collusion?" The dead doctor never
went out of his way to find her or ran
after her, that she was the one who did
the ru1rr:-ig. Het testimony was not
worthy OF belief for she impeached her
self by testifying they had been crimi
tally intimate, and in her letter to Mrs.
Duff denying they had been. The evil
dence shows that Duff didn't 90 to
Charlton to meet her, although she had
written for him to come. Clark IS letter
demanding $4,000 showed there was a
scheme between Mrs. Clark anG her
husband to bleed the doctor. Said the
defendant knew all about their relations
before Duff compelled him to settle. In
regard to the medical testimony that a
shock would produce insanity, he said
it showed it ould produce it at the
tlme OF the shock, not seven months
after. he closed with an appeal to the
jury not to say by their verdict that a
man can take the law into his own
hands, deliberately and with malice
aforethought 60 and shoot man down
IN cold blood. The aid of the courts of
our country should be invoked to en-.
force the law of the country. No man
mad right to say that man was guilty.
OF crime until he had had fair trial
and been found guilty by Jury. If
the jury acquitted the defendant they
would say that every person has right
70 go and shoot man against whom
they had spite and then when arrested
come into court and plead tenn porarv
insanity. In this case the most import.
ant witness for the defense had been
mpeached by her own statements, and
he felt satisfied the jury would do their
full duty under the law. Mr.. Olsen
CLOSED his argument at ll:O5.
He was followed by G. w. Hoffman
for the defense who commenced speak.
ing atll:l4. Mr.. Hoffman also reviewed
the testimony of the witnesses, first
calling attention to the character of the
witness who testified to knowing the
defendant since childhood, everyone OF
whom testified in the highest terms as
to his remarkable peaceful industrious
and upright life, a man who in his life of
49 years had never had a quarrel or
night with any man. He was devoted
to his wife, adored her, took all the
burdens he could from her sh-uIder.
even to getting up in the morning be.
tore daylight and doing the family wash
ing before he went TO commence his
days work. He treated her as queen.
ana there had never been anything
between them to cause trouble until she
met DIR. Duff. The man who the defend.
ant was charged in numbering had been
his family physician for three wears,
and the sacredness of the relations be.
tween physician and patient was such
that he had right to place implicit con-
hdence in him. There is no more sacred
relation and the physician above all
other men should keep himself pure.
That DR.. Duffby his wiles had taken
advantage Of the confidence reposed in
him and the vain and silly woman.
There was no question that he had vi
| olated her chastity. She had been
subpoenaed and forced to come into
court and testify, and would have
avoided it if she could. That the county
attorney had told the same old story.
"The woman is to blame" and had
tried to throw all the blame on Mrs.
Clark. The bible says the man who
commits adultery shall surely be put to
death. Clark and Duff were both
Masons and Odd Fellows, and by reason
of the sacred VOWS taken Clark had
every reason to believe that Duff would
not violate the honor of his wife, but
would protect her. He called attention
to the appearance of the defendant who
had never been strong, mentally or
l nh 81 eiCollv opd ooid h., hal ,,ok .h.,..