South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1914-12-03
DECLARES SUHL
FEARED HIS WIFE
WOULD KILL HIM

CONTINUED FROM PAGE ONE) |
witness denied the truth of this in
timatiOn.
Counsel sought TO bring out the fact !
that in truth Mrs. Trail had been at
church at the time Mrs. Suhl had
called and that she only knew what
had been said by what Mr.. Trail had
told her, it was also sought TO show
that the Trails had been much more
friendly with Mr.. Suhl than with Mrs.
Suhl The witness fatty denied these |
limitations.
Causes for Trouble
James Trail, husband Of Mrs. Trail, |
was next placed on the stand. lie
told of trouble between the SuhlS,
over property, which he had learned
OF through acting as agent. He re-
lated how at one time Mr.. Suhl had
complained TO him that Mrs. Suhl had
gotten everything into her own hands
so that he had nothing except what
he made as an employe Of the Singer
Sewing Machine Co. The testimony
went to show that Suhl was diScour-
aged because his wife, upon some pre-
tense, had gotten their property all in
her own name.
1t was brought out in the direct eX-
animation that a 36-acre farm near
Notre Dame had been sold and that
the retaining of a 81 600 mortgage by
Mrs. Suhl had also caused i'll feeling.
Mr.. Trail further related how on the
Sunday when Mrs. Suhl made the visit,
concerning which Mrs Trail had teS-
titled, he had urged her TO make peace
with her husband. He said that Mrs.
Suhl had at first threatened to gar
nishee her husbands wages but that
later she had said that she didn't care
if he did come back home from his
daughters so long as he would give
her some Of his salary to keep things
going" and that finally she had agreed
to the proposition of transferring the
property in question to be held by
joint deed.
Says Mrs. SuhI Cursed.
The direct examination of Mr.. Trail
was frequently interrupted by the de-
Tense in which it was sought to hold
the state more closely 10 examination
on specific points. Pros. Montgomery
asked the witness concerning the tenn
per of the Suhls at the various times
he had known them to quarrel during |
the eight years he had been acquaint- |
ed with them. An objection to this |
question was raised on the ground
that it was too general. A recess was |
taken while the point of law was
argued. The objection was sustained. !
Finally, after so many objections |
and so much alteration between |
counsel that the court found ii neces-
sary to warn them to not be so hasty,
the witness was permitted to answer
as to the treatment accorded to Mr.. !
Suhl by Mrs. Suhl during times that
they were together in Mr.. Trails /
Office.
The witness declared that he had
heard Mrs. Suhl curse her husband |
and that at times he had found it
necessary to separate the two
The cross examination of Trail had |
not gone far when Hagerty sought to
bring forth evidence to show that
Trail had been impeached as a wit
ness in another court. Objections |
were thereupon raised and the jury |
excused while the point was argued.
The objection was sustained and no
further evidence heard, as court was
thereupon adjourned until the after
noon.
Hearing Of witnesses came TO an
abrupt end in circuit court Wednes-
day afternoon when the defense h,
brought the prosecution up against a
point of law and then secured the
dismissal Of the jury for the remain
der of the day while the point of law
was threshed out before the court.
The point raised was upon the proof !
of the corpus delecti and after 10
VI al ulliClA~ ~ OOullotA VI
both sides the court took the ques-
ton under advisement until this
at o'clock.
The arguments on the corpus
delecti were started when the prose-
cutOr put Mrs. James Trail on the |
stand and asked her to tell |
what she remembered concerning a |
visit while the defendant had made
to her a short time before the death |
Of r. Cr,h1 IRE ic - xrrff 20 of
a real estate agent having his office |
on r. Jefferson blvd and it was
through Mrs. Trail that the state eX-
poets to prove that Mrs. Suhl had |
trouble with her husband concerning
their property.
When it was sought TO enter upon
this phase of the testimony counsel
for the defense objected on the
grounds that the testimony would in
yolve the defendant and that such a
course was not permissible inasmuch
as the state had not proved that Mr..
Suhl had died as the result Of poison
ing nor that his death had been
brought about through criminal
agency.
The Corpus Delecu.
The proof of this, the corpus delecti
as termed in legal phraseology, the
defense maintained, had not been ac-
and citations were made
TO show that this proof must be forth
coming before evidence can be intro
iuced to involve the defendant In
argument against this stand counsel
for the state cited from records - |
show that the order of procedure was
not material in bringing about this
proof. 1t was upon this point that the k
case rested until this morning.
In the arguments upon this point
Of law the defense asserted its stand i
that the state would not be able TO /
prove Mr.. Suhl met his death through 1
agency. If this were not &C
it was pointed out that |
il would be needless for the trial TO \
be continued after the hearing of the /