The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-07-17

Counsel for the defense did not object to
the Prosecuting Attorneys remarks on the
robbery of the bank. but when Meyersieck
stated that he expected to prove that Ru-
dolph and Collins entered into conspiracy
to escape from the St. Louis jail, Attorney
Schaper took exception to the statement
and was sustained by the court.
MEYERSIECKS STATEMENT.
The Prosecuting Attorney went only
slightly into detail in describing the events
leading up to the killing. He briefly stated
that Collins and Rudolph broke into and
robbed the Union Bank on the night OF De-
cenber 26.
'They loaded their plumber on horse
and succeeded in making their escape schu-
macher was at that time in the employ OF
the Pnkerton Detective Agency, and was
assigned to locate and capture the robbers
lie had reasons to believe that William Ru-
dolph who had recently returned to his
fathers home near Stanton. Mo-, was guilty
of the offense, together with an unknown
man who accompanied him."
Meyersieck then rapidly conveyed TO the
jurors the case he will attempt to prove. re-
EardinG the visit paid by Schumacher when
accompanied by Joseph Schmuke TO the Ru-
dolph home; Schumacher's subsequent VISIT
to the Rudolph home, when he WAS accom-
panied by Chief Deputy Sheriff Louis We'd
der and Deputies B. F. Tichenor and Eman-
uel Cromer. the killing Of Schumacher by
Rudolph and Collins.
DEFENSE ALARMED.
The defense elected to submit its opening
remarks at some subsequent time, az, Os-
car Busch was placed on the stand by the
Mr CT a tod his resi-
dence and place of business. In reply to
questions. he described accurately the rela-
tive locations of his residence and the Ma
tional Bank building. The next question
was objected TO by Attorney Schaper. In
voicing his objection. Schaper said:
ut is alarming to me to see injected into
this case SO much testimony that is not
vital, nor even pertinent. 1t is not fair to
my CLIENT
We are not being tried for robbery. but
murder. We have prepared our defense
along the latter lines and to call upon US
at this late date to refute a charge of rob-
berry of which there Is no record and of
which We have been officially informed only
three minutes ago is manifestily unfair to
our client. The only object the prosecution
can possibly have in introducing this evil
OeISS ~ " pieJuulSo liic VA tho Jot
ors against our client. 1t is manifestly
prejudical to the defendant"
MOTIVE
In reply the Prosecuting Attorney and
Attorney Booth attempted to demonstrate
to the Court the introduction Of the rob-
berry testimony was solely to show a mo-
tive for the crime charged in the infor-
nation
This point is regarded as most important
and should a ruling from the Court be
forced tomorrow. the result doubtless will
have an appreciable effect upon the out
some of the case.
The prosecution has summoned the fol-
lowing witnesses: Oscar Busch. August w.
Hoffman,, Edward Windlemeyer, Alexander
Lawrence. Joe Armstead. Esther Rudolph.
Sigmund Armstead, George Harness. Robert
Schmuke. Emanuel Cromer. B. F. Tchenor.
Joseph Schmuke. Walter Wright. Doctor
Goodrich, Albert Frazer. C. P. Vim,
Charles Brown, C. D. Charlesworth. X. G.
Bellairs. Jerry Campbell, George S. Doug
herty. James NJ. Dawson. George Lehman,
Ben Booth. Edward S. Mcclure and Louis
Vedder.
The defense will introduce the following
witnesses: Mrs Nancy Jane Rudolph. Frank
Rudolph. Nellie Rudolph. Esther Rudolph,
Ben Thurman. Harve Thurman. Pete Thur
man. Tom Woodcock and Matt Nettles
H. G. NICHOLAS,