Omaha daily bee., 1903-04-01
ARGUMENT IN LILLE CASE
Wsman Convicted Of Murder Asks Court to
Grant a New Trial.
ASSERTS Jury WAS A PRtIUDlc.O ONE
Also Insists Case was Improperly
Tried-ArEument on the Motion
Will Require at Least
Another Day.

DAVID CITY, Neb., March 31.-(special)
There was a large attendance in the dis
trict court this morning when the hearing
on the motion for a new trial in the Lille
murder case was called. Mrs. Lille was
brought into court at precisely $500 O'Clock.
She was accompanied by her parents, Mr..
and Mrs. James Hill, her daughter, Edna,
her two sisters, Mrs. Grisinger Of Bellwood
and Mrs, sutton, who resides in Michigan;
her brother, d. NJ. Hill, also Sam Lille,
brother OF the murdered man.
Mrs. Lille presents much the same APP
pearance as she did at the trial OF the case,
only is much more pale, presumably from
her Incarceration for nearly one month.
Hur mother, Mrs. Hill. occupied a seat by
her side and was constantly weeping. Many
we're the expressions Of sympathy for the
broken-hearted mother.
Judge Good announced from the bench
that a woman had handed him a letter. He
had read Just a small portion Of 1t, saw the
purport of 1t and handed the letter to
County Attorney Evans, and stated that
counsel could take such action as they
deemed necessary and proper. Judge Good
stated that he was not here to try the case
on the opinions Of the public, or Of any in
d~ividual, but purely and solely on the evil
dence and the law.
Attorney Aldrich Of counsel for the de-
PENDANT said: "This is one Of the principal
reasons we are here asking for a new trial,
thsse outside influences"
The contents Of the letter was not made
known. but from the remarks Of Judge
Good It was no doubt for the purpose OF
influencing him in the consideration of the
motion for a new trial.
Several Of the Jurors in the case we're in
tba a,dIapoa and urara yorv vnuch {ptaraafad
in the arguments. County Attorney Evans
represents the state alone; Senator Hast
ings' duties at Lincoln would not permit
him to be present. The defendant is rep
represented by the attorneys who tried the
case, Matt Miller and c. H.. Aldrich.
c. H. Aldrich opened the argument for
the motion. presenting authorities on the
question of the insuflciency OF the evidence
t. convict and the instructions given to the
Jury by the court on its own motion and the
refusal TO give certain instructions re-
quested by counsel for the defendant. Mr..
Aldrich argued very forcibly that the court
erred in admitting in evidence the results
of tests made on lace curtains, window
glass and screens and commended that II
was prejudicial to the defendant.
He attacked the jury in strong language
and said that there was not a man in But
Ter county that had not talked about the
case, and that the twelve men who tried
the case were not competent jurors for the
reason, as he believed, all had formed an
opinion before they were called as Jurors
in the case, that 1t was in the atmosphere
that Mrs. Lille was guilty. Mr.. Aldrich
had not concluded his argument at noon.
cites Alleged Error.
When court convened this afternoon Mr..
Aldrich continued his argument. He said
in part:
81 cali the courts attention to the fact
that the first witness called was DR.. Beede.
He was permitted to testify as the first witt
fess Toyerythes OBJECTIONS Of the defendant.
He was not the first person there after Mr..
Lille was shot. Bert Hall testified that
no was the first person there, but other
witnesses dispute him and say that DR..
Stewart arrived there first. We say DR..
Stewart should have been called as the first
witness, but he was not. We say this is
error.
1.-THE reason that the results of the ex-
periments as to powder burns on curtain,
glass and screen we're not admissible in
evidence is that no foundation was laid for
it's Introduction. This can only be done
by expert testimony. The admission OF
evidence tending to prove that the man
VINO nreu the Iatal shot never stoou on the
west side OF the bed, but that the shot was
fred from the east side OF the bed was
error. l am not finding fault with the
court, but with counsel for the state, who
have resorted to this kindSof practice to
break up a happy home, to render an inno-
cent child worse than an orphan. Why
we're Mae Lille and Dr.. Stewart not called?
They did call Ed Runyon, who gave some
OF the most damnable testimony ever given
on the witness stand"
BY the court: 81 remember. Mr.. Aldrich.
that Mr.. Evans stated that the state would
not call DR.. Stewart as a witness for the
reason he had testified before the coroner's
inquest on two different days, also at the