Weekly journal-miner., 1915-03-17


 after the case was submitted to them yesterday afternoon at o'clock. . Four hours later they were back in court with a pronouncement of guilty. It is understood that one of the jurors voted for acquittal, but that he chang ed his mind after the evidence had been thoroughly gone over by his colleagues.
 The Testimony.
 One witness was placed on the stand by the State yesterday, the wife of the defendant, and the wom- an whose earnings the defendant was charged with receiving. Her testi- mony was practically the same as in the first trial She stated that she had been married to the defendant at Olathe, Kansas, during the month of December, 1913. The couple left that place, went to Kansas City; then to various places in Colorado, New Mex ico, and Northern Arizona, arriving in Prescott during the summer of 1914. She admitted being at Carrie Neal's resort.
 The state rested with this testi- mony.
 Frank Garner was the first witness called by the defendant. This witness stated that he was a particular friend of the Floyds. It appeared from his testimony on ross-examination, that he had become acquainted with the Floyds shortly after their arrival in Prescott. He followed them to Clark dale, and later after they returned to Prescott, he also quit his position in Clarkdale and same to Prescott. For four nights he stayed at the Floyd flat on South Mccormick street. Wit ness stated that there were only two rooms in the flat and one bed. He was not asked and did not state where he slept .., ..,---,u
 Bessie Floyd was called to the stand by the defense. She stated that she never followed the occupation Of prostitution. That her residence at Carrie Meals was not in a profession al way, and that she never gave any money to the defendant from earn ings secured through illicit inter course.
 The defense then sprung the sur prise of the trial by placing the de- fcndant, himself. on the stand He proved to be a witness of consider able ability On direct examination he stated that he was a hard-working and honest cook That he had work ed at various places, and always did work at his occupation when he was not laid up on account of illness. He said that after his marriage, with his wife, everything went along bcauti- fully until a man by the name ot Smith, also cook, came on the scene after their arrival at Prescott. He stated what measures he took to care for his wife, advised her as to correct department, and rcprimanded her when the occasion. required, and even at one time secured the services of City Policeman Robbins to eject the man Smith from his wife's bedroom.
 On cro5s-examination, the defend ant admitted that he had been at Car ric Ncars place, and that his wife was also there, but not with his con sent. He said that prior to marriage with his wife, she was good little girl, as far as he knew. He admitted travelling with her through the states of Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona. At this point an offer was made by the state to place in evidence records to show that the de fendant had been charged with a statutory crime in Kansas on account of relations with his wife prior to marriage, and that he had married the girl in order to have the charge dis missed. This was ruled out, as not being competent.
 Morgan Makes Eloquent Speech.
 The defense then rested, and the deputy county attorney, J. H. Nor gan, addressed the jury. First taking up the law of the case, he pointed out the purpose of the statute, stating that it applied particularly to men of dissolutc habits, who consort with women Of ill-fame, and subsist on the proceeds of their shameful occupa- ton. He stated that the evidence showed the defendant to be char acter of the worse type, and crlm inal, dangerous to the community.
 In conclusion he said: Gentlemen of the jury, when man commits robbery or burglarize5 d house, he takes d chance. He pits his wits and his nerve against others. Murder is a horrible crime. but there Is often some extenuating circumstance con nected with if. Here there Is none