The Plymouth tribune. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1901-1911, 1910-12-15
PRISONER PLAYS CAME
FOR HIS FREEDOM
Alledged Burglar Acts as Own Attorney
in Trial Now Being Held in Circuit
Court-Large Crowd Witnesses Nov
ell Scene for This City.

ner, Mrs. z. M. Tanner, Enda Tan
ner, Harry E. Buck, Harry Humric
houser, and o. G. Soice. The defen-
dant named his witnesses as follows:
Jacob Haag, Miss Ada Haag, Daniel
Mcdonald, Mrs. Daniel Mcdonald,
H. E. Buck, Ed. S. Hogarth, Harry
Humrichouser, o. G. Soice, c. A.
Bcndurant, H. A Logan, Nightwatch-
man Mitt Mckinney, Ed. Garn, and
c. p. Holloway. Another unusual
feature was the large number of
witnesses summonded.
Prosecuting Attorney H. l.. Unger
briefly reviewed the case against
Edwards. He told how on the even-
ing OF Sunday November 9th, 1910,
Mr.. and Mrs. Tanner observed a
light moving about in the Preston
residence. next door, knowing that
the residents of that house were out
OF the city. Upon closer observation
it was preceived that the house was
being burglarized. Neighbors were
summonded also the sheriff Daniel
Voreis. The house was surrounded,
and one of the house robbers broke
away. and fed northward, down the
alley in the rear of the Preston home.
Sheriff Voreis just then arrived on
the scene. gave chace and finally
captured the individual, who is the
prisoner on trial. Upon search of
his pockets. trinkets were found
which had been taken from the Pres
ton residence the most evident of
which was a photo button, bearing
the likeness of Mrs. Preston. Later
the defendant stated that he had lost
an overcoai and pair Of overalls in
the fight. These were found by
voreis in the rear Of the burglarized
house. This in brief constituted the
states case.
Examination Of Witnesses
DIR. Preston was the first witness
examined BY the state. He establish
ed his residence, named the location
of the burglary etc., and stated that
he and his wife were in LaPorte Ind.
on the date Of the burglarization of
his home. He identified articles TAX
en- from the pockets of the prisoner.
as property belonging to himself and
his wife ,and which had been left
in his nome.
Sheriff Voreis told his part in the
capture of Edwards relating the
facts given in the statement OF Unger
He testified to the chase and related
that he had called to the fleeing one
to stop, which being unheeded he
followed by firing, his revolver at
him. The pursued one finally stopped
when the firing began. and said that
he had been shot. He exhibited a
rent in his trousers, which he said
had been made by a bullet from the
gun of the sheriff. When Edwards
began the cross examination Of
Voreis he grew more and more ner-
vous. His questions assumed a
random nature, and were not relative
to facts in the case. He became
more distracted, until his situation
became the object of pity. He was
mo lawyer .and knew very little
about handling case in court. The
services of an attorney which would
have been given him, should he have
desired, would have resulted in pres
enting far better case for him, and
would have heightened his chances.
The case of State of Indiana, ver-
sus Lawrence Edwards for burglary,
went to the jury at 2:47 o'elock
Friday afternoon.
The defendant completed his argu-
nent at 2:30, and hut six minutes
we're taken by Prosecuting Harry L.
Unger, III summarizing and conclud-
ing the argument for the state. The
instructions by the court followed.
BY the instruction, the case resolved
itself into one point. namely, wheth-
ar or not, the defendant Edwards,
sufficiently accounted for the pre-
sence of the articles stolen from the
Preston residence, in his pocket
when searched by sheriff Voreis.
| In instructions by the court, Judge
Bernetha, stated that either direct
" circumstantial evidence could con-
: Wet. provided that the circumstantial
evidence, proved guilt of the defend
ant, beyond all reasonable doubt
"Tfs finding of property stolen
from, the home of H. Paul Preston on
the person of the defendant, coincid-
ent with the burglarizing OF the
house If insufficiently accounted foi
by the defendant. would constitute
sufficient circumstantial evidence foi
conviction said the court. In the
evidence submitted by the defendant
it was only insinuated that the
sheriff placed the stolen articles In
! his pocket. The fact that the court
left the accounting for the articles
with the defendant, seems to clearly
indicate the finding of the jury,
/ Defence Disappointing
i The defendant lawyer failed pitt
fully to make even the semblance of
case by the evidence of his witness