Fulton County tribune. (Wauseon, Ohio) 1883-1925, 1918-01-18

dict is not supported by the evidence
Counsel have taken up various ques-
tions, for instance, with reference to
the jury-the jurors, asking questions.
At the onset, one of the counsel for the
defendant, Mr.. Fowler, did invite the
jury-did say to the jury that he
might not be compelled to do all the
talking, that the jury might feel free
to ask any questions and discuss the
case with him so that they might ar
rive at a good understanding, that if
anything were not plain to them, that
he would endeavor to explain it to
them and make it plain. Acting upon
that invitation, there was considerable
argument here. | am not able even
yet to feel, that that argument ex-
ceeded the invitation. Perhaps it was
not the very best thing to indulge in
with reference to part of the argu-
ment, but l cannot say that in face of
the invitation to discuss the matter,
that any part of that conduct was i'm
proper, nor will say SO.
Counsel also refers to the fact that
! the statement or testimony of Mr..
Lehman himself, Mr.. Fred Lehman,
was in no wise contradicted but that
the jury must have wholly, and did
| wholly disregard what Mr.. Lehman
| said, and wants to know why. 1t is
/ true that no witness came upon the
stand and testified that there were no
robbers there, that no robbers did the
1t is also true that story such as told
! by Mr.. Lehman is not improbable un-
der the proper conditions, but under
the conditions and circumstances as
/ detailed in the case, it is the most i'm
/ probable story | ever heard in a court
of justice, and the story of itself is it's
own refutation.
What men ordinarily do under sim
ilal circumstances ere the only guides
and lights that men have with refer
ence to stories under such circumstan-
ces. There were nc indications that
there were any robbers there that
night. Nothing was taken; there was
! apparently no motive for a robbery;
there was not eny unusual conduct or
disturbance Of conditions in that neigh
borhood that night. No strange per-
; sons were seen there or about there
and this crime was undoubtedly COM
: mitted when these people were alone
so far as the evidence in this case
; shows.
It is very strange that this defend
ant could go out Of the house, could be
shot couple or three times, twice as
he thought, not hurt any more than he
was hurt, lie out on the road as he says
he did, and drag himself through the
: dust as he says he did, and no indica
tions of this dragging; then be taker
: in the house with a wife that the de-
; fense shows he loved, and loved dear
l ly, lying in the next room dying, will
: but Just few minutes to live after HI
u GOT in the house, and yet he never say
: her until Tuesday morning. Reason
= able men don't do those things. 1t i
( one refutation of his story.
There are perhaps a hundred refuta
l. tions of that story, all found within
{, {, the story, and to my mind that is eX
4 actly why the jury must have, and die
> as they must have disregarded tn
: story Of ME Lehman.
d AS counsel for the defense said, h
u was either guilty of murder in the frs
d degree or he was entitled to be &C
: Quilted. l fully agree with that con
tt clusion. There was no evidence of
lesser crime, of an inferior crime, al
r. CONTINUED on page 81