The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1906-12-25
the EARGUMENTIN
In the Case Against DR..
Ball Started Yes
terday.
GOES TO JURY MONDAY

dUES lU JURY MUNUAY
Canton, Ohio, December 20 =
The trial~of DR.. A &c. Ball was re-
sumed Friday morning, the first wit
ness ON the stand being Mrs. Mabel
harrington, who was examined
by the prosecuting attorney. The
prosecutor interrogated the witness
closely regarding her former life and
association with Mrs. Mcclure, the
deceased woman. but she maintained
that her first answers on Thursday
afternoon to such questions were COR
rect, and that she was an associate
of the deceased woman.
Other witnesses placed on the stand
did not testify to anything of great
Importance, and we're not cross-exam-
fined extensively.
Early in the afternoon session, the
testimony being completed, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney. McCulloch open
ed the argument for the state. Mr..
McCulloch started by presenting the
condition of Mrs. Mcclure on Friday
preceding her death, and then show
ed the great change in ner condition
after her supposed visit to DR.. Ball,
which fact was taken from the testi-
mony of Mrs. Mary Harding. Mr..
McCulloch then described the agony
and suffering of the patient on the
next day. at which time Mrs. Harding
called DR.. Ball over the telephone and
advised him of the condition of Mrs.
Mcclure, in responsible which the doc
tor apparently wanted her to send
some one up to his Office for medi-
Accordingly child was sent to the
office of the physician, and brought
home bottle of vibernum. Mr.. Nc
Culloch then in dramatic style illus
trated to the jury, the fact that "Dr.
Johnson of Alliance, had always been
the family physician of Mrs. Mcclure,
and If DR.. Ball did not perform the
operation, why did they telephone to
him for medicine, and why did he
know just what medicine to send?"
These words were uttered in man
ner that sent q searching inquiry to
the mind of everyone. present.
In speaking of witnesses he did not
quoteTin detail sthe-~testimony of Mrs.
Wick, and sMrs. Harrington, but sup
plemented it-with short talk on the
character of~such witnesses.
Mre McCulloch spoke about one hour
and presented very strong plea for
the conviction of the defendant.
The argument sof.sthe defense was
opened by4s,Atterney- Kanler of Alli-
ance, who started by criticizing some
of the remarks made by Mr.. McCul-
loch regarding some of the witnesses
who appeared on the stand He up
held the testimony of Mrs. Wick and
Mrs. Harrington, by picturing how il
would be useless to call in as wit
nesses the. wives of Alliance manu-
facturers, but that it was necessary
to- call, in people of the same class as
the principals Of the trial now be-
fore, the bar. He. spoke at some length
regarding the attitude assumed by DR.
G. B. Haggard while on the stand, and
went SO far on this subject as to say ::
Gentlemen of the jury, DR.. Haggard
is the real prosecutor in this case. and
not our learned friend sitting here, y
pointing to Mr.. Upham. Mr. Kahler,
then recalled to the memory of the
jury the number of times DR.. Haggard
made use OF the expression. Il want
to be perfectly fair and honest in this
matter" and on this he dwelt at some
length, explaining that when a wit
ness is placed on the stand. he is
supposed to tell the truth. and when
he continually informs the court that
his desire is to be fair. that it casts
faint shadow on the course of the
mind regardless of desire.
The argument advanced by Mr.. Kah-
Ter is evidence that self-inffiction will
doubtless be the stand taken.
1t being 4 o'clock, and the next
speaker not wishing to be interrupted,
! court was adjourned until $3.50 this
morning; but this case will not be
heard until Monday morning at $3.50
o'clock, at which time the argument
will be finished. and the case submit
ted to the jury.