Evening journal., 1903-03-25

break her testimony in one particular.
Counsel tried to mix her up. He failed
As she detailed the testimony on cross
examination she told the facts in its
proper order. / will not detail 1t now.
1t will be brought out later.
Was there anything incrediiable or
( improbable about what she said. No.
body was brought to say they never
saw them together. They met in the
branch under a tree in a secluded pace.
Is there anything so improbable about
that?
Many such meetings have occurred
before, and presume will occur again.
The facts are not denied except by the
defendant himself. No ill-will has been
proved between the defendant and May
Rhoads. You must take that testimony
to be true.
1t was corroborated by her father,
Solomon Rlhoads. He did not testify
to anything unusual.
Here was a man with an 1S-year-old
daughter. He would want to know
about the letters she was getting. about
the company she wass keeping. The
counsel fer the defendant attempted
to demonstrate that Rhoads could not
read He asked the witness TO read
some words and he did It. He was
given a book to read and he read lines.
1t may be that Solomon Rhoads is
not a good reader 1t may be that he
needed his own glasses. He was put in
an embarrassing position to read be-
fore 300 people. This testimony cOrrOb-
/ u % Hc
Collins Knew Place.
That, gentlemen, the State claims,
was the motive. Who best had the op-
portunity to commit the act? Who was
there who knew the surrounding OF
this farm? Who knew where the bolt
OF hatchet was? Who knew there was a
colt on the farm? No one so well as
the man with the money. There has
been much said about the money. The
man who killed the woman was not a
mere passer-by.
Did it ever occur to you to think
about what a man would have done for
$50? Would the man. If he was killing
for money, would have rained so many
blows on the head? Every blow she
received the doctors said would have
caused death. Would he have stopped
to inhict all the blows and cut her
throat twice? say not. It was not a
man who did this act merely to rob. II
was a man who wanted, who intended,
to take the life OF that woman. A man
who merely wanted the money would
have inflicted cne blow. Would he
have cut the throat?
In reason he would not have done 1t
It was a man who wanted to take ths
life of the woman, who wnated (
leave no possible chance Of her recOy'
cry. Suppose. after this woman was
found dead, shortly afterwards a MAI
was found hidden in the branch Will
blood on him. en- his shirt Sleeves
4 stranger unknown Would it not have
been a fact sufficient to have impelle,
that whole community that he commit
ted the deed? Suppose he said he go
the blood from his nose. Would any
body have believed It?
Suppose you found not concealed I
man going from the direction of th'
Collins house. would not the presump
ton have been strong that he was tn'
man who did the deed? You have Jh'
defendant with the blood stains no
concealed; the husband, who knew
where she might be found Is no
that a suspicious circumstance? A fac
pointing to him. True he did not taN'
the clothes Off and bury or burn them
{ But there are many kinds Of men ant
men with many kinds of minds. Som
men may have tried to get rid Of thu
! clothes. A man with a more acut'
: mind would have worn them. THAI Il
not a queer process Of reasoning He IL
not an illitarate farmer. You have hin
with the garments ON him; with th'
: blood stains.