The Medina sentinel. [volume] (Medina, Ohio) 1888-1961, 1919-11-14

part of defendant and scorned the
idea that the shooting could be made
a part of or in perpetration OF rob
berry, calling attention to the three or
more hours which had elapsed be-
tween the robbery and the shooting
proper. The law of self preservation
was quoted by Mr.. Seymour in an at
tempt to show that Blood had right
to shoot if he thought his life was
endangered, and claimed that society
was responsible for the fact that
many youths are now. carrying con-
cealed weapons in violation OF the law.
In concluding his remarks Mr.. Sey-
mour sprung a slight surprise when
he asked the jury to return verdict
of manslaughter.
J. w. Seymour, also of the defense,
followed his son and stated point
blan that it was not his desire
that the Blood boy be acquitted,
claiming that the lad had been guilty
of a crime against society for which
he should be punished. He bemoaned
the fact that the state was insisting
upon a "big" verdict as he put 1t, and
declared that it had not been proven
beyond a reasonable doubt that the
killing was done in the perpetration
of a robbery. Seymour claimed that
the state was basing Its clam on thlS
charge on mere techmcallty ana
stated that the defense also should De
granted leave to argue over the same
Scorned any sympathy OF jurors, stat
ing that plain justice was all that ne
or the defendant asked Tor. Ad-
mitted that crime is rampant over
state at the present time but stated
this fact should have no bearing on
the case at issue. Likened the SHOOT
ing to quarrel and attempted to
show that pursuers had made up their
minds to kill regardless OF whether
Blood and his companions had sur
rendered or not. Dwelt at length on
who fired first shot and then wandered
away to an extent which caused states
ATTORNEYS to insist that Mr.. Seymour
stick to testimony as offered during
the trial. Mr.. Seymour charged At
torney VanEpp with brutally ques-
tioning Mrs. Merritt while she was on
the stand with questions which had
no real bearing on the case. Declared
he was not churchman but declared
the churches must "get busy" it they
would prevent way Of similar crime
which is constantly growing, caused by
poolrooms and shooting affairs de-
nicted in the movies. Declared he was
surprised when his partner in the
:, case asked for a verdict OF man
slaughter, but since same had been
= done he was loath to- do any different.
! Mr.. Seymour at the start OF ms re-
- marks stated that he had nothing to
, = say, but considerably over an hour
:, elapsed before he gave up the floor.
! The last attorney, Mr.. VanEpp, fo1
d the state, opened his plea to the jury
v with a concise explanation OF the term
d malice, claiming that it was unneces-
n sarv to show malice against the per-
d son injured, and asked the court to &c
J. 90 further into this matter in present
S ing it's charge. Explained the foul
: separate charges contained in. the In
S dictment and claimed that the evil
v dence pointed only one way-to mur
e der while in the perpetration OF a rob
: berry. Mr. VanEpp lightly scored the
l. defense in attempting to excite sym
pathy for their client in violation o1
e the law. Claimed that birth records
d secured were incomplete insofar a.
S they failed to show that Claud Bloot
! was born Oct. 10, 1902, as stated dur
d ing the trial. Argued that premedi
il tation started on the evening of tn
21st of June before the three boy
left Orrville they obtained TN
: guns. Cited as significant the fac
q that in the flight from the railroa'
8 track to the road that all three boy
- carried their guns in their hand
>. y read yto be used, claiming that TN
% was for no other purpose than to XII
j u to prevent capture. Went into tn
~ weighing of the bullets which prove
- - conclusively that Knapp had met nj
e death the result Of having been hit b.
n 38-calibre bullet In conclusion at
# # torney claimed that facts as produces
=, - at trial warranted nothing but ver
~ dict of murder in the first degree.
t. At the close of the arguments Judg
m Mcclure adjourned court for the moo
* hour stating that he would submi
e. his charge Immediately after dinner.
Mt Exactly at 12:45 Judge Mcclure be
at gan his charge to the jury. In
st charge was rather lengthy and tn
I'd Judge talked fast. He thanked tn
e. Jury for their excellent attention dul
t. ing the course Of the trial and advise
Of them to exclude from their minds an
rk impressions not brought out by tn
m evidence during the trial, or any ev
lie, dence that was overruled. Explaine
to the four charges contained in the il
nd dictment and stated the burden
ch proof rested wholly with the stat
o. Explained the difference between fir
in and second degree murder, also NAL
wv slaughter, and advised the jury tn;
at the first point to be considered W;
ed if Blood had killed Knapp. If d
M fendant did shoot Knapp the Judt
as granted the inference that it was dol
he to kill. Thirdly, if Blood intended
ers kill Knapp, malice must be looked fo
ng and this brought out further de-
lse milton regarding the word. If the Jul
GER decide that the shooting was purpos
in ly and maliciously done then the
he men must consider whether it was
re- the nerpetration of a robbry. T.