Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1906-02-14
GROVES LETTER To PRIEST
Bpistle Telling of KIDNAPPING Signed by
De endants Name Up in Trial.
ABMlsSIBluN RESISTED BY DEFENSE
Letter is said by Those who Have
Seen il to BE clear Cut Com
fession by Grove of
kidnapping.


The only interesting development in the .
trial Of rat Grove before Juuse Sutton ot
the district court Tuesday was an attempt !
ON the part of County Attorney Sabaugh to
introduce in evidence a letter whicn It is as
serted rat Grove wrote TO ReN. Father /
Murphy. Catholic priest of Vail, Ia, and !
which men who have seen 1t declare is I
clear cut confession by Grove OF the kid :
mapping OF Eddie Cudahy. 1t was sent, !
presumably. by Father Murphy 10 MI. !
Cudahy early last May. William Wallace, !
vice president, and Wallace .. Shane, pay
ing teller Of the Omaha National bank, |
testifying as hand writing experts, identi- I!
fed the signature. Pat Grove attached /
To the letter as being written by the person !
who signed the name to 4 receipt at the 1
police station and affidavit in the former |
trial Of Grove.
Shortly after II o'clock Judge Sutton eN-
cused the jury. and the defense began Its |
argument in opposition to the admission Of !
the letter. Mr.. Ritchie objected generally !
on the grounds the letter. whether 1t was .
signed 10y the defendant not, was in the .
nature of private communication between /,
a priest and member Of the church and /,
therefore inadmissible evidence. and I
that the signatures to the receipt and the /
affidavits were secured while Grove was
under arrest and in the course of a criminal (
case, and therefore inadmissible for the
purposes of comparison with the signature
attached to the letter. His argument con
tinued up to the noon hour, when an al
Journment was taken until o'clock ana
argument resumed. After listening to the
attorneys for the afternoon the court said /
he would give his decision this morning.
Cudahy Identifies Letter.
The letter was first brought INTO the
case during the eNaminat ton of Z. y.
Cudahy, sr, who was recalled to the stand
BY the state. He identified the letter as
one he had received early in May through
the mails. The envelope was postmarked
at Vail, la, and he understood, though he
did not have positive information that
Father Murphy a priest in the Cath
oic church there. He had had some cor
respondence with Father Murphy. The
letter in question contains about six pages
OF ordinary letter paper.
After Mr. Cudahy left the stand William
Wallace vice president of the Omaha Ma
tional bank, was called TO testify as a
handwriting expert. His testimony was
given over the objections of the defense
and in admitting it Judge Sutton said If
he found it was improper he would rule it
out later The witness examined the sig
nature attached to the letter and the one
on the affidavit.
Il would say they were undoubtedly
written by the same hand" he said in
sponse to a question by Mr.. slabaugh.
He alan- testified Ahe- entire letter was
written BY the same person and that the
sigma ture attached TO the receipt was writ
ten by the same person who wrote the
letter.
Positive in His Decision.
Are you abe 10 say positively upon the
examination of minute or two you have
made here they were written by the same
hand?" asked Mr.. English in eross-exami
nation.
Yes. sir
! Wallace .. Shane, paying teller of the
same bank, also identified the handwriting
/ on the receipt and affidavit the same
! that in the letter Mr. English asked him
! if the signature was not a simple one and
! easy to copy. The witness responded that
| no signature was easy to copy so that it
could not be detected. II was after this
! testimony was adduced that the letter was
offered in evidence and the arguments on
the objecrons Of the defense were begun.
! Previous TO this Judge Day. before whom
1ilS tTldl on lnt tUdTSt VI SiloOtllE oUlttT
Jackson was held, took the stand and testi-
( fed that the signature to the affidavit was
written by Grove in his presence.
At the request of the defense John Muir
! tagh, who testified 10 the appearance of
, the men who rented the Patrick cottage
before the kidnapping was recalled for cross
examination. He said the defendant did
not look like the man he saw at Patrick's
In reply to a question by Mr.. Slabaugh he
testified he could not say that the defendant
was not the man. He said the defendant is
neshier than that man.
The state introduced as evidence half a
/ dozen photographs of Grove the lantern
used by Mr.. Cudahy on the trip to Pad
docks grove and several legal documents
among them the papers bearing the sig
nature of Grove, objection Of the defense
To the admission of the pictures and docu-
ments being overruled by Judge Sutton.
Long Argument on Letter.
Almost the entire afternoon was taken
up by the attorneys in the argument Of the
objections Of the defense 10 the introduce
ton OF the letter. In his argument County
Attorney Slabaugh contsnded that mas
much as the letter was not written 10
Either Murphy in his capacity as priest
and contained a request that he forward
liz to Father Linnihah and write to Mr.. and
Mrs Cudahy about it, ii was not confiden-
tia and could be admitted. He also con-
| ter ded that the signatures on the affidavit
and the receipt We're written willingly by
the defendant and could be admitted for
the purpose of comparison.
The reading OF passages from the letter
Iappeared to affect the defendant greatly
one part which read told of the de-
! fendants desire to reform and lead an up
rieht life. He said Father Murphy. 10
whom he was writing had buried his father
and Father Lnnihan had buried his mother
When Mr.. Ritchie read this Grove leaned
over and buried his face in his hand. Then
he pulled his handkerchief out of his pocket
and wiped his eyes.
| sutton Takes Tsme.
| At O'Clock the arguments and citations
of authorities We're finished and Judge SUIT
| tor said he desired TO reserve his ruling
on the admission OF the letter until this
morning.
1T must be conceded" he said in making
the announcement, that one test OF the ad-
missibility Of the letter is that the rela-
| ton claimed must really exist. The COM
} munication must be made in an official ca
pacity. The question depends on whether
the writer sought the priest in his official
capacity priest and communicate OF