The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-02-15
Advertiser Bureau, .{-=- Selma, Feb. IA


 we, the jury, find the defendant not guilty"
 With the reading of that verdict in the City Court this evening one Of the most interesting murder trials In the history of this county was completed. Walter S. Lawrence was exonorated of the charge of the murder of H. Beiman and is tonight a free man.
 The fury deIiberated only thirty seven minutes and 1t Is said there was no indication of dissension from the verdict of not guilty. Immediately after the reading of the verdict court was adjourned. Numerous friends or Lawrence from many sections or the county surrounded him and showered congratulations. It was the opinion of a majority of persons interested in the case from a spectators point or view that the jury's verdict would Vindicate the defendant and throughout the day his friends were so confident that 1t was not once hinted that he was likely to be convicted.
 There were many surprises attendant on the trial in the City Court of the past two days. Instead of bringing out additional and stronger evidence, as 1t was thought the States counsel would do, the prosecution made no im- provement in its case at the prelimi- nary and was apparently bafhed in ev- cry attempt to show a motive for the alleged murder of Beiman by Law renee. It is the general belief that the only material and impressive evidence that the State furnished was in the dying deposition of the merchant which was admitted as evidence after a strong objection by the defense.
 On the other hand, the defense cut It's case short and a number of wit nesses whose testimony was considered of great value at the preliminary were not examined Mrs. Beiman, the widow of the dead man, was not put 'on the witness stand and neither were her son and daughter, nor Lawrence, the defendant At the preliminary the defense used Mrs. Beiman and her chill dren to disprove the motive that the prosecution sought to assign and Law renee told in detail how the merchant came to his death. >-.s+a-
 Atai2 o'clock the State rested and after examining several character witt nesses'fn the afternoon session the de- fense- closed it's ease It was expect ed that the taking of testimony would consume. the whole e the two days. Beforey5 o'clock the two attorneys had completed their arguments to the jury and shortly after 5:30 o'clock the jury retired.'
 The charge of Judge Mabry to the jury consumed only a few minutes; but numerous special charges sub mitted by Colonel Quarles of the de- fense occupied some time. The special charges covered practically every le- gal phase involved in the trial and instructed the jury on its duty, lay ing much stress on the presumption of innocence and the existence of req sonable doubt
 The arguments were comparatively short. There was less orimination and recrimination than marked the argu- ments In the Mayors Court. both Colonel Quarles and Mir. Mangum con- fining themselves to a review of evil dence and short, but eloquent appeals to the jury to be governed accordingly. In his argument Colonel Quarles re- peated his assertion with the exception of the deposition of Beiman the State had failed to make out case and he argued that on account of conflicting statements made by Beiman after he was shot the jury could not convict by reason of the dying declaration. This matter was incorporated in the spe- cial charge.
 MT Mangum held that the deposition in itself was sufficient evidence to convict on, together with the other statements made by Beiman before his death, and the "impracticable" theory of accident.
 There was an interesting contention this morning. which the defense won, when the prosecution recalled Dr. S.. G. Gay. Yesterday testimony as to what Beiman said about hls wife was ruled out, but today counsel for the State sought to reproduce 1t. In ar- guing his contention MT. Mangum said that the law had construed an accu- sation against a defendant where there was no response as legal. Silence in dicated admission or confession on the part of the accused person, said he. Colonel Quarles followed with a lengthy argument defining an accusa- tion emanating from the opinion or conclusion of a dying man which, he held. denied the defendant the consti- tutional right of cross examination and which. therefore. was illegal testimony, because neither the defendant nor the dead man, were he on the stand. could testify to it. He pointed out the legal parts of dying statements and the in troduction of motive.
 s. Eagle. a witness for the prosecu- ion. fared III at the hands of the de- Sense's counsel. In the cross exami- nation, he was asked how much he had contributed to prosecute the de- fendant. The witness denied contrib