The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-05-13

in the house where the tragedy oc- cured. The prisoner had been q crate to himself, but of no importance to his victim who had won them. This regularity of loss and envy of the prisoner for the better fortune, both at cards and in life, which the dead man had. enjoyed had built up in the heart of the prisoner hate of his companion as deep and as endur-. 1t was hate none the less terrible because it's object was unaware of its existence. The poor boy who, had been killed on the night in question had indulged only in such simple raillery as one friend directs against and especially where there were ladies among the spectators This raillery was of a character that would have been accepted as evidence of fr1endli- ness by any man in the jurybox1t would have called for nothing more severe than retort in kind. or some romping push with the shoulder. some slap on the back. or other rough ,playfulness. The man now dead. the former friend of the prisoner, had been slightly intoxicated-that would be shown by the State and would be admitted by the defence. He was in a condition in which even had his aggression not been friendly, even had his wish been to inflict bodily injury upon the prisoner, he could tot have been dangerous to the prisoner him. self. who had not been drinking on that evening. who was. as the. jury might see, a young man of athletic surrounded by several persons more friendly to himself than to his vic- tim. The prosecution would show that the prisoner had been In no peril whatever, that he could not have act ed in self-defence, that he would not the motive had been hate, that the intent had been murder, that the weapon had been lethal and deadly.
 When the taking of testimony. was begun the bare facts of the tragedy were simply outlined. That at one time in his annoyance Dennfng had. waved g scarf-pdn in front of the pris- oner the prosecution itself establish ed. The soarf-ptn, being a small ob-' ject, was passed to the jury so that each member of that body might see 1t for himself. The cat's-eye was handled with bovine indifference by Hardmuth's twelve citizens. Their results, because received before any suggestion of it's peculiar quality, if 1t possessed a peculiar quality. was made to their healthy and ordinary minds.
 The paper-cutter, another exhibit for the State, was passed to the jury. been shown that the paper-cutter had lain upon the library table in it's ac- customed place, familiar to the prts- oner, to which, at one stage in the so-called quarrel, he had directly. crossed. It was shown that when the prisoner had taken the paper-cutter from the table he had taken it by the lighter end and not by the handle. and had by this very selection turned 1t into the powerful weapon which it was. The twelve citizens in the jury box were in the main not uniformed in the choice of weapons, and were not unappreciative of the value of lines.
 Lew Ellinger had been impatient to reach the witness stand. He had been delighted that he was among the witnesses summoned by the pro- secution; he had felt that half a doz- .en words from him. given with the .fervor that he would lend them, would immediately clear the boy in the mind of any unparalleled listener. The States attorney, a much younger man than Ellinger, treated him with a curtness-one would almost say 2 rigor-to which Ellinger as a South ern gentleman was not accustomed.
 
 the States attorney. and one with whom Ellinger had frequently fore gathered in convival association, sus-- tained the conduct of the attorney with an inflexibility difficult to un- derstand in friend. It was only Ellinger in hand for his cross-exami- nation. a process which. Lew had un- derstood was the epitome of imperti- hence and uncharftableness, that Lew received anything like the urbanity and gentility which had always made him cultivate gentiemanly associates.
 It was during this cross-examina- tion that Lew found his opportunity to utter many of the polished phrases which he had rehearsed during the months. Some of the best and most impassioned of these were almost spoiled by the interrup- ton. of the States attorney. How ever much Ellinger had advanced the case of the defence. he certainly knew when he left the witness box that no doubt existed of his loyalty to the prisoner.
 As Lew minutely reviewed his tes- timony during that day and the next, distinguished places where 1t might have been improved. He remember ed several interruptions by the States which might have been rebuked if he had had the to construct the replies which now came to him in his calm CT moments. But with it all there was only one line in his entire testi- mony, dragged from him by the pros ecution in it's redirect examination, which he regretted. In moment of excitability, and perhaps personal van ity, he had said that cat's-eye push ed into his own face in the manner in which the cat's-eye in evidence had have excited him to any frenzy.
 Hardmuth, another witness for the State, with a clarity most impressive to the jurymen. and with the author ity of a States officer. an authority which every touch in the surroundings tended to augment, testified to the bare and uncolored facts of the trag- edy. He had seen the commence ment of the quarrel; he had seen the prisoner leave the room; he had seen the victim also leave the room and go into a second room in which the pris- onei was not; he had seen the pris--t oner re-enter this second room and rejoin the victim; he had seen the difference, a quarrel on one side and a banter on the other, resumed; he had seen the prisoner take the ivory tusk in evidenc eand repeatedly strike his victim.
 In the cross-examination of Hard muth the defence elicited only the fact that in the general chorus of outcries~ which followed the enactfng of the tragedy the witness himself had char acterized the deed as murder, had him. self secured the weapon, had started to notify the police, and had been