The Sentinel=record., 1914-01-11

f She swore that some one in the hall told her that some one threw rock through the window and that it was to protect those who were in her house from being stoned that she picked up the beer bottle and threw it through the opening in the glass door
 On the Cross-examination, conduct ed by Prosecuting Attorney Witt, she testified that she had no intention of injuring any one, and that she did ot know until the following Friday that she had hurt anybody. She de nied that she had gone away to Pine Bluff a few days after the incident to get away from arrest, and said that she went to Pine Bluff to see Hammit Ashford in order to borrow $100 to meet some bills with She swore positively that she never heard the young man had died until she was told by Deputy Constable Tate when he arrested her on the charge.
 Evidence after this dealt with the injury the young man had received Judge Mooney, of counsel for the de fendant, prepared a Hypothetical question, which sought to establish that the death of the young man was not due to the injury that he receiv- ed when struck by the beer bottle, but rather from the treatment that he received, or the lack of treat ment.
 A witness for the state had sworn to a dying declaration made by the dead man in which he had complain ed of the pain in his head, and at whiclAtim he had recognized the par ty to whom he was talking, and when he had said that the Tolliver woman had hit him with a beer bottle and that he would be killed from the in. jury.
 Dr. John s. Wood had testified that death was due to a blood clot, which had formed after the wound or com pression on the brain. Judge Moon eys hypothetical question dealt par ticularly to the probability of re- turn to consciousness @ second time after receiving such an injury. Dr. J. A. Beebe and Dr. k. G. Davis were called to the stand In answer to the hypothetical question, neither Of these physicians believed that it was probable that any person would re- turn to consciousness after such an injury as described in the question, after the blood clot or compression had been formed.
 The injury that Bowen had receiy- ed was on the night of November 1, and the following day he was unable to be taken home in the morning, but in the afternoon recovered conscious ness and was taken home, and the next morning, the third day again ~e- lapsed into inconsistencies, and 1t was the fifth day that he was alleged to have made the dying declaration, as testified to by state witness.
 Compression symptoms there fore, played an important part in the defense, occupying much more time and attention than evidence relative directly to the circumstances of the enactment of the tragedy. This it was explained, was necessary be- cause of the absence of one inmate of the house, Pearl Franklin, whose absence the defense based an appli- cation for a delay in the trial on. The defense also claimed to have been badly handicapped through the ab- sence of Tom Franklyn a police of fcer.
 Members of the police department it was established that Millie Tolli- yer had paid all the salary of DO lice officer who patToled the Elm street district for a part of the time, and that at other times she paid half the salary of the officer of the law This evidence was regarded with much interest by those present in the court room, who had remember ed a recent charge made in effect that houses of this class, where liq- uOfS were sOlu uHldWlully, required additional police protection from the city.
 The state did not introduce any re- buttal testimony and after the in- structions were read by Judge Goth am to the jury, the argument was opened. Deputy Prosecuting Attor- ney A. B. Bedding opened the argu- ment for the state, and was followed by Judge Robert H. Mooney, after which Attorney w. c. Bouic closed for the defense, and Prosecuting At torney Witt made the closing argu- ment for the state
 MOVE AGAINST GUADALAJARA.