Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1905-12-08
PAT GROVE IS NOT GUILTY
Jury Returns Verdict Of ACquittal on the
Shooting barge.
CHARGE Of ROBBERY STILL TO BE TRIED
Prisoner Goes Back to jail Reiterat-
ing His Faith that He VIII BE
Freed and Restored to
Usefulness.

! Usefulness.
/ An hour and twenty-five minutes was all
| the jury required to come to verdict after
the trial Of Pat Grove. The jury retired at
900 p m. and returned TO the courtroom Mt
sI5 ready TO report. Grove was brought to
the courtroom and sent one anxious glance
! in the direction of the men who held his
/ fate in their hands. His face was white and
/ tense as the foreman rose TO address the
/ court. but fash of JOY overspread his fea-
/ lures as he heard the words, Not guilty.
About fifty spectators we're In the room and
| all appeared to be satisfied with the ver
diet
! Grove was returned to the jail. where an
other charge awaits him, that of robbery.
in connection with the Cudahy case. Never
theless, Grove seemed to be very cheerful
as he discussed the recent trial. He eX-
pressed himself as not at all surprised at
the result and that he had the same faith
for the future He said. You may mako
! this statement for me II you will"
He then dictated the following: II re-
member to have said to a reporter in Butte.
Mont. while confined there that God takes
care of all of us. and l believed that TIo
would take care of me- 1 believe i made
that statement faithfully. l believed that
when a mans intentions were right for
tune would favor him. Although still in
prison. have faith to believe that this for
tune will still be with me, and that my
| friends will never have cause to regret their
| fidelity. intend to make my future home
IN Omaha, and here expect to retrieve my
lost prestige"
Court Instructs the Jury.
About 150 people assembled in Judge Days
courtroom at 1880 last night and listened
with cagerpess to the instructions of TIE
court tc the jury which was trying Pat
Grove. The jury filed in at 1885. Perfect
attention was given to the instructions of
the court These were read by the Judge
and touched briefly the points Of the case
After stating the two counts of the indict-
mcnt the judge showed that as the de-
ferdant had pleaded not guilty it was the
burden Of the state to prove him guilty be-
ycnd reasonable doubt. If the defendant
were found guilty the punishment must be a
term In the penitentiary. He declared the
intent or the defendant must fix the degree
Of his guilt, but this was not susceptible of
direct proof by witnesses. 1t must be in
ferred by the nature of the evidence. Such
matter was within the province of the
jury to decide by unprejudiced examination
of the evidence. 1t must decide the prisoner
did make the assault on September 6. 1905.
In a malicious spirit and manner, unlaw-
tully and feloniously. He declared the de-
fendapt to be a competent witness in his
own behalf and the fact that he did not
testify must not be placed to his dtscredit.
Inc jury was urged to take into considera.
tion the nature OF the wound and all the ct !
tendant circumstances 1t must decide
whether the plaintiff or the defendant
opened fire first. He also stated that the
evidence Of police officer should be more
carefully weighed than that of any other
person from the fact that it is his business
70 present evidence that will secure convic-
lions. hence his evidence is naturally more
convincing on the face of it.
Defense Springs Surprise.
IL was the turn OF the prosecution to be
surprised Thursday morning i'm the Pat
Grove case. When Judge Day. on taking
the bench, said Proceed, gentlemen" Mr.
! bngHsh at once responded THE defense
rests"
county Attorney Siabaugh smiled a smile
OF appreciation of the turned tables, then
consulted with his assistant Mr.. Foster,
and announced, The state rests" He |
asked for five minutes TO gather the
threads OF the testimony for the openinp
argument, and at the end of that time Mr.
Foster took the floor He devoted almost
an hour to careful review of the testi
hnohS or the witnesses for the state. going
oVer, IL ser1atim. OF the testimony of the
TWO witnesses for the defense Mr. Foster
salu IL meant nothing and proved nothing.
neither did II contradict any material mart
of the states case
Attorney Ritchie opened the srg,,n,o,t fo,
the defense with an impassioned discussio,
OF the bill OF rights and the sacredness ~
every mans liberty in this country. He
warned the jury against the cherishing of
any bias prejudice or anger against de-
Iehoaht ana TO keep always inNmind the
presumption of innocence conceded to +ho
accused by the law. The testimony of the
detectives who We're present at what NJ,
Ritchie called the battle OF TJioi,or,,
street was analyzed. its divergence pointed
out and it was held up to ridicule until the
audience snickered. Then Judge DAY for
the third time during the trial Threatened
10 clear the court room If there was am,
further demonstration. '
Mr. Htchie contended that all of the de-
tectives had guns of SS-caliber ana tbat =.
was bullet from such a gun mat ~
struck Jackson. He asserted that v,ba,, -.
uncertainty was created as to that fao,
whether jackson was hit by the 6ftb man
OF oy one OF his companions-then the
states case fell.
English and SIabauEh.
Attorney James p. English followed bts
colleague for the defense. He opened nv,
saving he had felt that his client was SAFE
from conviction when the case opened ana
he felt equally confident now that n Was
closing. For that very reason he had feIt
willing practically to rest his clients case
on the testimony Of the state. He said tbe !
state relied entirely for any possibiIitv ~
conviction on the testimony OF three poI,cs |
officers Interested in saving their own faces
after an attempted arrest and defeat
The state must. to convict this deferd
ant said Mr.. English, prove beyond The
possibility OF doubt three propositions.
First that the man with whom the detec-
tives exchanged shots on the night of Sen
tember was Patrick Grove: second mat /
Grove fired the shot which struck jackson. !
and third, that the shot was fired mia, !
fully, feloniously and maliciousIy. and no+
In self defense. We assert, and We believe
that the jury will agree with us. that tho
states evidence does not sustain these |
propositions.