Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1911-06-24
SELF-DEFENSE PLEA
SHARPLY FOUGHT
BY BYPROSECUT0R
HENW00D'S VERSION OF
KILLING TOLD TO JURY
Slayer Of Won PhuI and Cope
land Breaks Down In Court
When Woman He Sought to
Save Is Dragged Into Case,
my Morning Journal Special Lsa.4d wirel

lBy Morning Journal Special LeasAd wirel
Denver. June 23.-ltulings by
Judge Greeley Whitford, presiding at
the trial of Frank ii. Henwood the
New York gas promoter charged with
the murder of George T.. Copeland, a
Cripple Creek, Colo, smelter owner,
who died as the result of wounds re-
ceived when he was struck by bullets
fired by Henwood at (Tony) Won Phul,
the St Louis balloonist, when Won
Phul was shot and fatally wounded by
Henwood on May "a. today put the
defense in n tight corner from which
it wriggled only with difficulty.
Henwood testifying in his own be-
half, had gone over the events prior
to the shooting and was proceeding to
tell the jury of threats made against
his life by Won Phul. These alleged
threats and an assault on Henwood by
Won Phul in the latter's room the
night preceding the shooting. form the
cornerstone of the plea of self-defense
Objection to the recounting of such
threats was sustained by the court
which held that foundation had not
yet been laid for the Introduction Of
such evidence.
Following the ruling, the defense
temporarily took Henwood from the
stand and called l.. NJ Duchene, a
bellboy employed at the hotel where
the shooting took place. by whom it
contradicted witnesses for the state
regarding Won Phurs actions imme-
diately following the knocking down
of Henwood.
Duchene who testified he was stand
ing al the end of the bar waiting for a
drink which he was to serve in one of
the hotel rooms. declared that Won
Phul. after knocking Henwood down.
stood with his left arm on the bar.
half turned toward Hcnwood, right
hand on his hip pocket with every
indication of being about to pull a
gun Cross-examination failed to shake
the testimony of the witness.
Win this as a basis, the uefensc
tomorrow will renew its attempts to
bring the alleged threatening of Hen
woods life by Won Phul before the
jury.
The presence of both Mrs. John W.
Springer and of the defendant on the
witness stand gave today the greatest
interest but the testimony of neither
brought out anything new. Mrs.
Springer's testimony being interrupted
at almost it's start by a ruling of the
court that the evidence she was to give
regarding what she had told Henwood
about the danger from Won Phul in
which he stood was not admissible at
that time.
This forced the defense to place
Henwood on the stand, in order TO
form basis for introduction of Mrs.
Springer's testimony later.
Henwood on the stand went over
practically what his attorney had
brought out in the opening statement
to the jury.
Henwood, overcome by the knowl-
edge that the home he had sought to
protect has now been broken up by
the disclosures following his shooting
of Won Phul, broke down, sobbing bit
terly. At his request, court took a
recess until afternoon
Mrs. Springer, leaning on the arm of
her physician and accompanied by a
nurse and her attorneys, created a
sensation when she was called to the
stand.
Mrs. Springer answered the ques-
tions of counsel almost as If in daze,
repeating the words of her interroga-
tor in a bewildered fashion, and pro-
testing that the meaning was not clear
to her. Her examination was hardly
commenced. however. when the ruling
of the court compelled the defense to
take her from the stand.