Las Vegas optic. (East Las Vegas, N.M.) 1908-1921, 1909-06-04


In the district court the case of the
territory VS.. Virginia Valdez de Tel
tlebaum is drawing to close ana
win probably be given to the jury
late this afternoon. At the conclu-
sion of the testimony of David Enci-
Mas, who detailed how Teitlebaum
was murdered by Leandro Romero.
Estevan Dominguez and himself on
the night Of February 18th 1908, and
how the forty dollars found In the
store was divided equally between
Dominguez and himself, Leandro Ro-
nero refusing to take any OF the mo
aney, saying he would be content to
marry the widow of Teitlebaum, ana
intin1ating that she had promised 70
marry him If the "old man" was put
out of the way, the territory placed
ON the witness stand, a small boy
named Garcelon Gonzales, and an ell.
derly woman, neighbor OF Mrs.
TeitIebauna, to prove that they hao
often-times seen Leandro Romero n
and about the house OF Teitlebaum'
more especially when Teltlebaum was
ID Las Vegas and Mrs. Teitlehaum'
was there aIone.
Defense Springs Surprise.
A. the conclusion Of this testimony
fbe territory rested its case, and ..
4 I,arrazolo. counsel for Mrs. Teitie- |,
haum moved the court to instruct the
iury to return verdict of not guilty
for the following reasons:
First. Because there is no evidence
IN the case. sufficient to sustain and
10 warrant a verdict Of guilty.
Second. Because the evidence IN
4he case absolutely fails to show that
fhe defendant was an accessory be-
fore the fact to the commission Of
the crime OF murder charged in the
Indictment.
Tbird. Because the evidence for tine
territory in the case affirmativeiy
shows that the crime Of murder, com
,mitted by Leandro Romero, as an az
cessorv to which this defendant Is
charged was not committed by the
aa;d Leland q Romero in pursuance
and bv reason Of any procurement
advice, abettment or orders or induce
ments of tais defendant whatsoever
Makes Strong Argument.
Attorney -.arrazolo in strong an'
forcible argument before the cour
contended that before a person cal
he convicted as accessory before tn
fact. that it must appear, not onl'
that the accessory melted, procure'
or commanded the commission of tn
murder, as one essential element, bu
that the ofense actually committed
was committed by reason of such ad
vice. procurement. order, command Q
induoement. ,Mr. Larrazolo contend
ed that the only evidence in the ni
ture of the case possible for tn
court to have, and the only evidenc
in the poss ession of the court, wher'
BY this defendant might be found gui
ty as an accessory is to be receive
from the principal offender, LeandT
Romero. on cross-examination. Ths
Leandro Romero on cross examin'
sion testifi ID unqualifiedly on ths
proposition as follows:
Reviews cross-Examination
O. When was the first time thu
Mrs. Teitlebaum asked you to ki
her husband. John H. Teitlebaum u
der a promise to marry you?
A. At the corral back of the hous
in Tecolote.
@. Did you then agree with her
kill Teitlebsum as she requested yt
to do?
A. No, did not. But told b
TO kill him herself.
@. SO you did not agree with b
TO kill her husband2 ~s
Il "a. No. / did not
@. Whel was the second time 81
spoke to you and asked you to K
Teitlebaum'