Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1903-02-26

leur was in the burning barn. Ann
| Vaughan testified that Mrs. l4aNeiieul
i was where she was working on tht
| morning of the murder and that sh
told her she had been having trouble
with her husband and that she wouli
get rid Of him If she had to kill him t.
get him off the place.
The defense commenced immediately
with the examination OF it's witnesses
calling Sheriff Hook to the stand ant
also Deputy Sheriff Agnew. They tolt
of the finding of the boGy and its APP
! pearance. Agnew testified that wller
he went TO serve papers on Willis
| George to appear before the coroners
jury that George said he did not know
| much about the case; that he was SICK
| and only knew what he saw lying In
| bed looking out of the window; that he
| did not see any one go in or come out
| of the burning barn. George testified
on direct examination that he saw the
boy bring the horse out of the barn and
Mrs. Laveleur went into the barn after
her husband went in. =. A. Wells, a
member of the coroner's jury, was also
called.
1t is expected that the defense will
and that the arguments will commence
some time tomorrow.
After the lawyers had a round con-
corning the competency of the witness
the, court remarked the presumption is
IL favor of the sanity of the witness and
| it is upon the challenger 40 show in
competency. Mrs. Lal,sren was then
sworn and testified as follows:
Where do you live, Mrs. Langren?"
"Colfax."
You lived at Lavslleur's. did YOU
not?''
Yes, sir; lived there for some time,
as l had no other home.
You have not betn staying with
your guardian. have YOU"
No, sir: ] have not lived with my
guardian for some time"
when did you leave llere?"
May 20 last
How old are you?"
"Fifty-three.
Mrs. I1angren was then asked IL she
understood the nature of an oath and
she replied that she did and that she
knew ii she did not tell the truth that
she would be sent to Fort Madison and
punished hereafter. She said that she
was at the Lavelleur home the day of
the fire on April 20 and was asked what
she did.
Well. was getting the dinner, help
ing Mrs. Lavelleur. when Frank came
to the house and wanted to know If
dinner was ready. 1t wasn't and he
went to the garden to do some spading.
Herman then came into the house and
said the barn was on fire"
Did you see that the barn was on
fire..
NO. but heard it,
where was FRANKIE"
He went into the barn.
What did Mrs. Laveileur do?"
She went into the harm and then
saw her strike him in the head with an
ak. She struck him twice.
What did he do?"
He fell backwards to The ground"
well, what did you do then?''
II went to the barn and Mrs Lavel-
leur cut of. the hands and feet with a
scythe and put them in coal bucket,
covering them UP with cobs, and
brought the bucket to The house,
where was this?"
"At Laveileur's.
what county,"
"Buena Vista, I think"
what county is this?''
II don't know"
''Do you know what state this lisp"
mo, SIR
The cross examination that followed
took all of the forenoon in which Mrs
Langren again said that she knew the
nature of an oath and that she was tes-
c.,f,, a. ~
who was explaining these things to her
that she had just testified about she
replied her wisdom. Sl.s. said She re-
members April % very we'll and that
the day was very windy She could not
remember the day before and said that
was two days before. She pointed out
to the attorney just how and where Mr.
Lavelleur had been struck with the ak,
which she described as a small one Her
whole testimony was incoherent and
she stated when caught in inconsistent
statements or In different story than
that made to the corpner's jury that
she was lying then, but was telling the
truth now. She was asked If she testf-
fed that she swore she cut ,Lavelleur's
arms and feet off and she said she did
and that was the truth. Asked on cross
examination when all this took place
she replied that 1t was in 1888 The
cross discrimination lasted until noon and
by the time 1t was finished the defense
had so broken any damaging evidence
that she might have said so that 1t is
thought her testimony will have but lit
tie weight with the jury. She persists.
however, In the statement that she saw
Mrs. Lavelleur strike her husband but
this was followed by the Statement of
the surrounding circumstances that
makes this statement hard to believe.
The state expected Mrs. Langren's tes-
timony to be the direct and positive evil
dence of Mrs. Lavellenr's e1lilt backed