The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1913-03-19

| {Cout1nusd from Page One.)
that the jury should believe the many
rather than the one, when SO many
of the statements of several witnesses
| tailed almost exactly.
Lillard talked until shortly after II
o'clock. At 1880 this afternoon Otis
z. Hungate for the defense began his
argument. He will be followed in
turn by r; F. Hayden for the state;
John J. Schenck for the defense and
County Attorney William E. Atchison
for the state, who will make the clos
ing argument. II possible the argu-
the case may go over until tomorrow
for submission to the jury.
There were SO instructions read to
the jury by Judge Whitcomb when
court convened this morning. The
court instructed that, under the in
formation, verdict of guilty of muir
der in the first degree, murder in the
second degree, manslaughtera in the
first degree and nanslaughter in the
fourth degree might be returned. The
jury also was, of course, instructed
that a general verdict of not guilty
might be returned.
Lengthy definitions of justifiable
homicide and excusable homicide were
contained in the instructions, the court
warning the jurors that if the death
was an accident. OF if it resulted from
the attempt on the part of the defend
IL
that they must find him not guilty.
It is the general belief that a YER
dict finding the minister guilty of moth
ing more than manslaughter in the
fourth degree will be returned. The
other chances in the case are a hung
jury, and an acquittal. The court
particularly instructed the jury that
if one or more jurors decided that the
defendant is either innocent or guilty,
and that the others disagree, that
verdict cannot be returned.
With the adjournment of the second
division of the district court late yes
terday afternoon all the evidence in the
w. L. Beers murder case had been pre-
scented to the jury. Today attorneys
are arguing the case, following the
instructions in the case read to the
jury by Judge George H. Whitcomb
this morning.
On cross-examination the defendant
who occupied the stand all day yes
terday, and told his own story of the
tragic death of his wife at the Glen
wood hotel November IL, last, denied
again statements made by Harry
Black of Tiffin, o., wherein he was
presence of the attorney, and also of
abusing the Catholics and using pro-
family to Mr.. Black.
Over and over again during his ex- |
animation he was asked if he ever |
beat his wife. kicked her, dragged her |
around from one room to another by |
her hair, or placed his fingers in her |
mouth, and every time an emphatic |
denial came from the lips of the min |
lister.
Ibid you ever beat your wife?' John |
J. Schenck would ask every time he
reached a point in his examination
where reference was made to state
ments of the states witnesses touch
ing the subject. |
II did not
Did you ever kick her?''
IT did not
Did You ever drag her around by
her hair?
II did not
did you ever put your fingers in |
her mouth Intentionally %
IT did not
'Were you always ready and will |
With you as your wife, and take care
IF her cIlildren?" +
always, always"
A sensation was sprung when
schenck openly accused E. G. Staley,
IN attorney of Ohio, of lying about his
-eligious beliefs on the stand.
any investigations in Ohio to ascer-
Beers said he had Schenck asked him
,uted to be Catholic. 1
Owe object" shouted Attorney Hay
ien This witness should first be sure !