New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-05-23

Now, gentlemen. IT obviously becomes
a matter of great Importance in TINS
case for YOU to determine whether Rose
did call up this defendant and nave
conversation with him shortly AFTER tue
murder. In view of the TACT tnat ho rso
is. without any controversy. one OF Lne
murderers who caused the death or 10
seminal; i'm view OF the fact tnat no
seminal was killed about Law IL pc
comes imr ortant for you TO INQUIRE
whether or not Rose, one or those WIZ
murder OF Rosenthel was In commuhl
cation with this defendant at ABOUT q
o'clock that morning.
What is the evidence in this RECORD upon
that subject? Rose said that he did nave
that conversation. Is he corroborateu /.
Is his testimony true? Carney produces
the telephone slips or his once those
telephone slips show that at 900 can
says he telephoned to the defendant, ana
that that call was connected with Audu-
bon 1894. the place which Rose says ne
got the defendant upon the teiepn2iiie.
Carney says that the telephone SIPS
show and the slips are In evidence, tnal
the call between these two places was
connected between 2:51 and O'CLOCK that
morning
Do YOU believe these telephone slips and
the testimony Of Carney? II you 90,
corroborate Rose or not? That Is queS-
ton for the gentlemen OF this jury 10
determine.
DO you believe that the presence OF
these slips tend TO corroborate the state
ment OF Rose that he communicated that
morning with the defendant? II you
do. and il Rose did have converse
ton with this defendant at 2:oI on
the morning Of the murder, what was
the subject Of that conversation
What do you believe took place? What
is il natural and reasonable to sup
pose would have taken place in that
conversation in view OF tho ciroum-
stances proved. Now. l do not say
that Rose did cali up the defendant
and talk with him That is matter
for you to determine.
Justice Seabury led up to the alleged
meeting of Rose, Weber, WALTON and
Becker on 42d St, not long after the muir
der, by declaring that there was "a little
conflict Of evidence" in regard to that
meeting. He said:
Now. there is little conflict or evil
dence as 10 whether or not TINS deieh9-
ant came downtown in front OF Weobers
Weber and with Rose. Weber ana
Rose say he did: Hawley says that he
met the defendant when he came out OF
the subway. and that the defendant prac-
tically for the balance OF the evening was
continually under his observation.
There is question OF fact for you
gentlemen to determine. You are to de-
termine whether or not this Defendant 81
the bar did come In front OF Weoper ;
poker room that night OF the murder
The police blotter, as | remember IT,
shows that the defendant reached the
station house al AIS in the morning. Ana
Jack Sullivan" has testified that he
saw, that morning, Rose and Weber
and that this defendant was not in the
presence OF Rose and Weber AT the
time that Rose and Weber claim that
they were with the defendant.
The court reviewed the evidence tend
ing TO show that Becker knew where
Rose was in hiding. at the home OF Harry
Pollok during the two days following
the murder. although he did not make an
effort to apprehend him when the police
were looking for Rose. and told Deputy
Commissioner Dougherty and his secre-
tary, Mr.. Young. that he had not seen
Rose or heard from him for week. The
court said II was for the jury to decide
whether Becker had guilty conscience
dence how far il went In corroboration
of Roses testimony.
The court instructed the jurors that
they should not be prejudiced against the
ueltHuttll DttdAco It Moo n PoAANc YIN
GER" or because they might think he
was guilty Of graft. They should confine
themselves strictly to the specific charge
OF murder. he said.
II the jury believes that any witness
in this case has knowingly testified
falsely to any material fact, you are at
liberty TO disregard altogether the tes-
timony Of the witness and to base your
verdict uron the other evidence that re-
mains in the case. ! do not say that
you must discard the evidence OF a wit
ness who has testified falsely to ma
terial fact. I say that the rule of law
is that you may do so.
You are to determine, gentlemen
the responsibility is yours-whether
from all this evidence you believe that
this defendant at the bar is the inno-
cent victim Of = gigantic conspiracy
concocted by Rose, WALTON and Webber
to hold him responsible for a murder
that he never committed; or you are
to determine whether or not tho evil
dence in this case carries conviction to
your minds this defendant nstigated,
planned and counseled the commits.
sion of that murder.
That is the question in this case for
YOU gentlemen To determine from all
the evidence that has been adduced
upon this trial.
The court looks to YOU 10 give this
case the consideration which II deserves
II YOU are not satisfied that the de-
PENDANT is guilty, acquit him. II YOU
are satisfied OF his guilt. return him
guilty charged. and In determining
the degree OF crime that he is guilty Of.
IL you conclude that he Is guilty, the rule
OF law is as follows: When Il appears
that defendant has committed a crime
and there is reasonable ground for doubt
in which OF two or more degrees he il
guilty, he can be convicted of the lowest
OF these degrees only"
! am required by law to submit TO YOU
all the degrees that are included in the
charge OF murder, but | am also required
to tell you that II you find a defendant
guilty your duty is 10 find him guilty OF
the degree OF crime which the evidence
and the proof shows that he committed
In conclusion. Justice Seabury said:
Without intimating any opinion, and I
have endeavored 10 refrain from init.
mating any opinion as TO the guilt or
innocence OF this defendant, / trust that
you gentlemen will arrive AT a conclusion
I'm this case. Unless every party in a
trial performs bis full duty the trial cam
not be properly conducted