The Birmingham age-herald., 1914-03-15

might find for the defendant came to- night whom they asked to examine the testimony of Bernard Frank in the con- vict department probe following the Lacy dedication. Franks testimony in the probe was contradictory to his tes timony before the jury in the Oakley trial, and this is believed to have had 8 strong effect upon the jury. Nearly the entire day was consumed in the argument of the case. Ray Rushton of Montgomery, one of the counsel for the defendant, spoke two hours this morning in behalf of the defense and made one of the most brilliant speeches of his career. The prominent Montgomery attorney held his large audience spe1lbound during the greater part of his address and his closing words will long be remembered l by those who heard him.
 RushtOn Makes Strong Appeal
 MT, Rnshton made a strong appeal to the jury just before closing his speech. He urged them with tears in 1 his eyes, to weigh carefully the evi dence in the case before reaching a verdict. He made an appeal to them on the grounds of friendship, declar . that he placed too much confidence in his friend, and said that that quality which the defendant had manifested was one of the noblest attributes known to the human race.
 l When fe concluded his masterly speech, in which he had adhered strict l 1y to the evidence in the case, the courtroom was silent for several sec onds. MT. Rushton's appeal had reached all those within the sound of his voice. and while many believed the deefndant guilty, the vast audience was for a l time held spellbound by the eloquence and logic of the Montgomery lawyer ! taf, fA11 Ar tCr, and spoke for three hours to the jury. The veteran Birmingham attorney. an 1 opponent of Mir Rushton for the Sem ate of the United States, began his speech by a scathing denunciation of 1 Oakley, whom he declared had fur nish ed the brains for every regularity of the convict department
 The Birmingham attorney dwelt at l length on the evidence in the case, de- claring that Oakley's defense was q fabrication from beginning to end and one that no one with intelligence would believe. He characterized Oakley as a thief. liar and as a swindler of the deepest dye, yet one with brains enough to conceive the greatest crime in the annals of the state.
 Finally he produced a package con taining $a0Q0 in currency. which he passed around among the jury, asking them to try to place it in their in-
 
 $5. $l0 and s20 denominations, hence the packas was too bulky to be placed conv enientiy in coat pocket.
 | The defense promptly called atten- ition to tho fact that there were 63O bills in the package, and asked that the money be turned over to the jury when they retired This was ordered lby the court. | Rushton Begins Argument
 Attorney Ray Rushton began his ar gument in behalf of J. c. Oakley at 9:3l clock.
 MT Rushton .contended that the Oakley case was similar to the Nasty case of Marengo county, in whicn the supreme court held that Judge Hasty had com mitted no crimi<al act in having. con verted funds to his individual use wher he made every shortage good with his own mohey.
 MT. Rushton declared that Oakley should not be held as a co-conspirator oi Theodore Lacy inasmuch as he did mol think this conspiracy had been proven He did not state that Oakley had not beer lguilty of great negligence, and he dit
 not attempt to excuse his neglect of duty l or incompetency.
 l MT. Rushton insisted that Oakley b.
 tried only on the charge of embezzlinl
 $22Q7o2, known as the Bernard Franl 1 transaction. He declared that the state hady attempted to adduce evidence show
 ing OalSley's connection with other cases
 hut he cautioned the jury to consider onl. the evidence hat had been brought ou
 in the Frank case.
 MT. Rushton dwelt at length on Frank, testimony, calling attention to his con fiicting testimony in the convict depart
 ment investigation now before the jury
 He declared that Frank wanted his pound of fesh
 Referring to the testimony of Dr. G. B Grove, Mir. Rushton said that no evi dence had been brought out by tht
 state contradicting Dr. Crowe's testi
 mony. He said that pr. Crowe's testi
 mony had been corroborated both by W. Miller and w. P. G. Harding. presi dent of the First National Bank of. Bir
 mingham.
 | If you are going to punish Oakley be
 cause he trusted a friend, God know you will punish him for one of the fines qualities known to mankind" said Mir
 Rushton in his closing remarks.
 He urged the jury to weigh careful, all evidence in the Frank transaction declaring that the main issue of the cas- related to that transaction rather tha,