Year: 1870

&c., locket and chain, scissors, hammer
twilight and hood, map of Grant Co. Wis
and map of Clayton Co., Iowa.


Prosecution here rest their cause.


Mr.. Noble on the part of the defense
stated that they had but little if any tssti
mony to offer, and that ut all events but a
very short time would be consumed in its
presentation.


Court then adjourned until tomorrow
at u o'clock, a. m.


1t is generally understood that the de.
fense has no testimony to offer, so that il
is expected that the argument of counsel
will commence tomorrow.


Judge Murdock will open the case to the
jury. The prisoner seldom lifts his head
now. His nervous system is evidently suf-
fering from the effects of the protracted
trial. The only hope of the defense is that
the jury will find that the crime was COM
mitted in Wisconsin. The fact of his guilt
is evident to every one who has read the
testimony, while the circumstances of the
case render it one of the most horrible and
brutal of any on record.


July, 9TH 1870.


Defendant offered in evidence, tran
script from the records Of the District
court of Grant County, Wisconsin, which
showed that defendant had been indicted
in the District Court of Grant County,
Wisconsin, for the same offence. previous
to the finding of indictment on which he
is now on trial. which was objected to land
objection sustained, on the same ground
that the testimony of Davis was excluded
on this subject. Whereupon defendant
rested.


Before the commencement of the argu-
ment, defendants counsel stated to the
Court that they should insist on the prose-
cution restricting itself in argument to the
single question of the jurisdiction of this
Court, and that the District Attorney alone
should open and close the case. The court
refused to restrict the argument on the
part of the Prosecution to District Attor-
ney, but on request of the District Attor-
ney, Judge Murdock and j. 4. Stoneman
were permitted to argue the case on part
of Prosecution, to which defendant excep-
ted. 1t was agreed that each Of the defend
ants Counsel, Messrs. Noble, Odell, Upde-
graft and Ainsworth, be permitted to ad-
dress the Court and Jury.


Whereupon at 9 o'clock Il. III. Judge
Murdock on the part of the prosecution,
addressed the court and jury conceding
that it was the duty of the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the defendant be-
yond any reasonable doubt. He maintain
ed that the court would take judicial notice
of the extent of its territorial jurisdiction,
citing United States statute comforting con-
current jurisdiction on the territory of
Iowa with other states bordering on the
Mississippi, over the waters of the Missis-
sippi river from shore to shore. Also the
act of Congress admitting Iowa into the
Union to same import. Also cites act of
territorial legislature of Iowa extending
jurisdiction of counties on Mississippi riv-
er to east shore Of river concurrent with
other counties and States. Also quotes
from revision and decisions of Supreme
Court of Iowa to same import. He then
proceeded to show that even by common
law authority, independent of statute, this
jurisdiction of Iowa over the waters of the
Mississippi river, existed and could be
maintained. Maintaining that the legisla-
tion, National, State, and Territorial,
combine to recognize and establish the jur-
isdiction of this court, provided the Of
Tense was committed on the Mississippi riy-
er, which fact he proceeded to show that
the evidence would clearly establish.


The judge here proceeded to trace the
history of defendant and Haggerty family
and their intimacy with each other as mar
rated by the evidence down to the time Of
his taking her to Prairie du Chen.


Defendant visits Mrs. Haggerty.at Prai-
rie du Chen, she expresses JOY at seeing
him, and tells him that she last night
dreamed of seeing him with white pants
on and asks him why he had not answered
the two letters sac had written him, to
which he roughly replied, got no letters.
This was fatal dream to Maria, for with
in six days Of that time she is at the hands
Of the defendant floating down the Missis-
sippi in watcry grave. Two days after
this interview, she leaves Prairie du Chen
and is next found at McGregor purchasing
a stove, bedstead, and other articles of
household furniture. Why is it that on the
following day after making all these prep
arations for permanent housekeeping ut
McGregor, that there is a change of pro-
gramme, and she is found selling off these
articles and leaving? The reasonable and
true answer to this inquiry is that she was
prevailed upon by defendant to leave with
him to cover up and hide the crime of their
too great intimacy here:the curtain drops,
and we next find the defendant with Mrs.
IIaggerty and family on the following day
| at Bridgeport. What business had he
there with this woman, is a question for
the jury to answer. She was not his wife.
From here he is traced to Cassville and is
seen with this family near the fatal spot
What business had he there if not to re-
conoitre spot to plunge this family into
a watery grave ; II this was not his object
and purpose what was it? After having
looked out the fatal spot and reconnoitered
this duo wav and slOuph instead of seek.