The weekly times-record. (Valley City, N.D.) 1912-1922, 1922-03-02

be quite common. When Cation had
been shown that these were not unus-
ual he had hedged by saying that
they were characteristic Of Brown
when taken into consideration with a
multiplicity Of other things.
Judge Swenson drew attention to
the fact that the two experts who tes-
titled for the defense, F. L. Watkins
and George Dangum, are both resi-
dents of the state and are property
owners in the state and would be more
interested in the upholding OF fhe
laws Of the state than would an out
slider.
James Farrell Actually Exists
He said that the testimony Of Mr..
Bergeson, chief Of police Of Willmar,
Mimi, shows there actually did exist
a man by the name who resided at
Willmar in 1913 and the description
Of this man conceded with the des-
cription as given by the accused.
Judge Swenson said that the de-
tense did not know who committed
the murder, any more than did the
state, and that they were not attempt
ing to prove that the murder had
been committed by James Farrell but
merely wanted to show that there
was person in that hotel on the
night in question who had not been
accounted for.
He also drew the attention of the
iurv to the fact that the bloody and
gruesome exhibits had been brought
into court by the state to inflame the
minds of the jury against someone,
presumably the defendant.
Judge Swenson completed his adj
dress at 1900 o'clock and Judge Bar
nett began his plea to the twelve men
who will decide the fate of his client.
Judge Barnett began his address to
the jury in a rather sarcastic vern'
saving that the state had always re-
ferred to the defendant as man
when he was merely boy of % years
Inexperienced and not familiar with
the WAYS of the world. He referred
to the inalienable right of every man,
given to him by the constitution
which entities him to life, liberty and
the pursuit Of happiness and asked
the Jury if they were convinced, be-
vond a reasonable doubt, by the ev-
idence presented, that the defendant
was guilty of the crime as charged.
He then brought up the question OF
the method of elimination as used by
the state in disposing of the various
onests at the hotel that night. He
said, eff you ask every man in tins
room, Did you murder Marie Wick
it is likely they would be unanimous
answering NO, yet that is the way
the state had eliminated many OF the
guests of the hotel that night.
Evidence OF No Value
In illustrating the fact that circum
stantial evidence may often be very
misleading, Judge Barnett advanced
two or three suppositlous cases. The
first one concerned Fred Lawrence
He said that the state was baslng
their claim to Gummer's guilt on the
fact that he was the only man in the
hotel that night who had the oppor-
tunitv of committing the crime with
out detection. In view of the evidence
would it not be as reasonable to sup
pose that Fred Lawrence had an eq-
ual opportunity. Fred Lawrence re-
tired shortly before midnight and his
movements between that time and 7
o'clock the next morning have not
been checked in any way other than
his own testimony. Fred Lawrence
had lived in the hotel for some time,
was thoroughly familiar with every
thing in the hotel, knew the location
of the different guests for the night,
and knew that Marie Wick had been
checked into room 80. He had the
additional advantage of having some
authority around the. hotel and if he
had attempted the crime and been
discovered in the act by GUNNER,
could have ordered GUNNER back to
his place at the desk. Why should
Fred Lawrence be eliminated on his
own testimony any more than Gum
mer?
Case Based On Morality
The state has based a large part
of their claim against GUNNER on
the fact that his morals, sexually, are
not of the best. The state has claim
ed that nothing could be proven
against ]. J. Hagan but Judge Bar
nett asked, if Hagan were on trial,
the circumstances, in this respect,