The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-03-12

whether the taking of q few extra handfuls of crackers, cheese. and pickles Justified the stabbing of fiee- ing man. He had never heard of .
 lawsuit like that in Schenectady. It behooved him to do his best, for 1t was | his first New York case, and he went through all his law-books looking up authorities. The more he looked up | the more hopeless the case appeared. | There was no real question as to the | facts; and the law was hopeless. He | rehected that the less one tried to con-
 tradict indisputable facts, and the more I one steered away from eually indispu-
 table law. the better for his client. | The trial began the next Thursday in
 the Supreme Court. Van Buren and his
 client appeared without a witness The plaintiff was accompanied by a large
 section of the population of Cherry Hill.
 In choosing the jury Van Buren took
 pains to secure well-dressed business
 men with uptown residences. To pre- | vent the calling of the hospital physi- | clans, or of any other witnesses than | the Cherry Hill inhabitants, Van Buren | stated to the court that he would admit the injuries and their extent to be as
 alleged in the complaint. The trial
 proceeded, and witness after witness
 testified to seeing Kehoe chase the
 longshoreman and stab him in the back
 They told their stories with gusto in
 full detail. Van Buren asked every
 witness the same questions, and, ex- cept to one question. he received the
 same answers, as follows:
 What ward do you live in?" | The fourth.''
 1 Known as the bloody fourth, isn't itY' | Yah" Who is the alderman?
 ''Moriarity."
 | "A scene like that which you have de-
 scribed is a frequent sight in that
 neighborhood, is 1t not?"
 l Sure it is." t-.
 You say the defendant. MT. Kehoe. | had knife in his hand. What kind of
 knife was it?''
 | On this point there was a conflict of
 testimony. All the witnesses said it
 was knife from the lunch counter.
 but some said it was the bread knife, and others swore 1t was the cheese
 knife. Van Buren had a sheet of legal
 cap paper, and as each witness testi- | ned he made tally on the sheet as to
 which kind of knife was used. The
 jury, the judge, and the spectators be- came more and more interested as Van
 Buren continued. asking every witness I NhN SoihC quCStiOu T1dhlHk HIS IdI-
 Hes. He held the paper so that the
 jury could see that he had written
 'bread' on one tally line, and cheese"
 on the other.
 | Thirty-hve witnesses testified one af-
 ter the other to the details of the as-
 sault The trial of the case had lasted
 over three days, and the judge and the jury were tired and irritated, and hos-
 tile to the plaintiffs lawyer. The judge
 had suggested several times that there
 was no necessity for all these witnesses repeating the same story, but the plaintiffs counsel had prepared the case thoroughly on the theory of enlarging | the verdict by the overwhelming evil dence
 When the longshoreman's case was closed Van Buren arose. and. address ing the court and jury. explained that l he had no desire to tire them further by calling additional witnesses, for his witnesses. indeed. the defendant him. self, had nothing to say in dispute of
 what had been testified to. He thought
 the plaintiffs able counsel had omitted
 the important features of the case, and
 he therefore had sought to bring these
 facts before the jury e Gentlemen of the jury" he con-
 tinued. you will note that all the wit
 nesses were in accord in their answers to all the questions which I asked ex- cept the last. and assume that with | this unanimity of statement out of the mouths of the plaintiffs own witnesses you will regard 1t as a settled fact that these occurrences here described took place in the famous fourth ward, of which the well-known Moriarity is the alderman and boss. and that such hap penings are in that neighborhood mat. ters of frequent apd casual occurrence In such neighborhoods as you gentle men reside in it might be regarded as an unusual and serious thing for one gentleman to insert a knife, no matter what the nature or character of the Knife, into the person of another gem tleman But in passing upon an event Of this nature you must consider where 1t occurred and the character of the people and the neighborhood, and you will note that according to this null titude Of witnesses this was nothing but bit of common, everyday pleas- antry, sort of repartee in which the inhabitants of Cherry Hill frequently indulge.
 "The important-in fact the only dis crepancy in the testimony, Is as to the character of the knife. On that point have kept careful tally, and the re- suit shows that nineteen witnesses tes- tlHeu that IL was the Dread-knife and sixteen that 1t was the cheese-knife. The witnesses on both sides are equal ly earnest and positive in their state ments, and the court will tell you, as a matter of law, that preponderance of evidence is not numerical preponder- ance but preponderance of credibility. must confess that on this one import ant question I am myself in grave doubt. It is the province of the jury to pass upon it, and to my mind 1t Is the only question in the case. You will pardon me for quoting poetry, but there is a gem heard at the rooms of the Moriarity Association the other evening which I think we'll applies to this case:
 Tn the fourth ward, the fourth ward, Where the big majority
 Gives the people authority,
 They vote for Moriarity.
 And Moriarity rules the roost."
 The jury and the court alike were roaring with laughter at the close of his speech. The plaintiffs counsel rose and made an elaborate argument. The jury went out after a, short and color less charge by the judge and returned in a few minutes with a verdict for the defendant, and with an additional state ment that they believed 1t was the bread knife. It was discovered later that at the resorts, which the members of the jury were accustomed to fre- quent only bread-knife was used. and that to discover the cheese there was a lcheese-scoop and not a knife.-From