OCR Text |
Show EXAMINATION IN T1IK MUKDRA (.llAH(;K. In the court on Friday tho arguments argu-ments of counsel occupied tho entire day : Genet al Maxwell opened tlie argument argu-ment for the prosecution, llo did uot deem it necessary to occupy a great deal of time in argument. There- were no conflicting law points iu the case aud the import ant evidence was con-lined con-lined to a few witnesses. The prosecution prosecu-tion is not obliged as before a jury to make out a case beyond a reasonable doubt, but the commission of the crimo being proved, they have only to present a reasonable amount of evidence evi-dence to point tho finger of justice to the guilty parties. Baker's evidenco was commented upon. If ho had come upon the stand with a detailed story, professing to remember every detail and circumstance of that night, we iniht havo thought his story to have been a concocted one. Baker may have been mistaken as to these trivial detail-, but he could not be mistaken as to the dying shriek of tho victim; he v;is behind tlio fence; lie saw the gleam of the sword, and heard iho ghostly scivam and the pistol shot; saw three of the men run within six feet of him, ami recognized them; he is not likely to be mistaken in these thing which were vividly impressed upon his mind ho could not be expected to romomber tho trilling trill-ing incidents of the night in the face of the great tragedy. linker's testimony is confirmed by that , of Charles King a.i to the horrid i f cream made by the murdered man. The counsel held that they had made out a probable case in regard to Burt and Hampton. As to Toms, no man who had once seen him could mistake-him. mistake-him. lie could bo recognized half a block. Baker's evidenco has tho impress im-press of truih, and he could not be successfully impeached by a Slalo prison bird a member of the chain gang, who had offered to impeach Baker for S'OuO the man who had come here with a piece of fised up hand-writinc, of his own accord, because be-cause he said Baker had sworn to a lie. The comparison of the (wo notes said to be written by Baker was a well concocted con-cocted scheme, but it would have been well for the defense if it had been better bet-ter Jono. Tho general then oomparcd the writing in the two notes, showing tho Doints of difference, holdimr the theory that the original note sworn to by Kramer as hauded him by Baker, was written by somo one from a study of an address obtained from Baker at noon on Tuesday. The counsel said it was well done lbr the time they had to do it in. But admitting that Baker wrote that letter, it is a question for the jury and is not now in issue. Tho evidence of Butterwood, who i identified two of the defendants, has not been impeached. His evidence bears the impress of truth, and is mainly corroborated by other testimony the two men who ran past him were clearly impressed upon his memory; he has since seen them frequently. It is nut a little singular that four or five men can be found who played checkers check-ers on that night so long ago at Alexander Alex-ander Burt'?, who romember who played and who beat at tho game the story was concocted for a purpose either ; at that time or since. In looking at j the surroundings of this ease, the counsel said tho interest manifested in 1 it by the police forco was remarkable. ; It looked to him as if the entiro police of the city were on trial, and he believed be-lieved it too. Why was it, that a man could be murdered in tlte heart of this city, just as tho theatre was letting out, and nope of jts perpetrators have been brought to justice. It looks as if others than the guilty parties were interested in-terested in keeping the affair a secret. He firmly believed that they had got the right men and that the evidence is sufficient to bold thcra under the rule. Mr. Pitch followed for the defense. He said that tho prosecution must show a probable cause that the defendants de-fendants aro guilty of the murder. The examining officer must bo satisfied of this after weighing the evidenco, examining its grounds of probability, and decide as to tho sido upon which tho preponderance of testimony rests. llcvicwing Butterwood's testimony, upon which Hampton and Burt must be committed, if at all, he pointed out sou-eofthc discrepancies in his testimony. testi-mony. He alluded to the remark that this witness stated was mado to tho man upon the gato, "Good night, Brigham Hampton," as altogether improbable. Pricnds and acquaintances-did not address each other in j this stilted way. The statement as to j words uttered, My God, tlon t niur i dcr me," which Buttorwood heard, were heard by no other one of the wit-j wit-j nesses. The probability of the idcnti-! idcnti-! ficatiou of the two men by witness, ho ! never having seen them before, was commented upon. Ho did not see the ! faces of cither only identilicd them by their stature and figure, whon they had large overcoats on. As to tho alibi in reference to BurU there was not that close connection of language to show a conspiracy. Is there on tho whole sufficient evidence to convince a fair jury of tho guilt of these defendants. If a jury had found them guilty on such evidence would not the court feel obliged to set aside a verdiot of guilty found on such evidence evi-dence as Butterwood's? As to Blytho and Toms, and Baker's testimony, tho counsel would not refer, to the witness' jail experience aud hia rambling career through tho Territories for the last fivo years without any vis-i vis-i ible means of support; admitting his honesty, he would attempt to test the accuracy of his memory, fie atlempt- 1 ed to give details und cirou instances ocourring before the murder, reviewed '. his statements in regard to the theatre, , which have been proved incorrect I his statement as to the bight of the ! fence the wrong location of tho gun ' shop the identity of men that lie had never "seen before that day. Toms could not be identified by King or : Sprouse. Bringhurst says the men j wcro not Blythe and Toms. He road j legal authorities to show tho legal rules ' of recognition. He referred to the I matter of tho handwriting. If Baker ! had admitted that he wrote the note, , which Kramer testified to, it would not ' have affected his testimony; It would ! rather havo strengthened it. He made ! tho mistake iu deiiyiug it. If he tosti-j tosti-j tied falsely, tho rule false in one, false I to all will apply.Ho should uol'attcmpt to bolster up the eharaater of Kramer; ! he was a jail bird and a hard ohanic-! ohanic-! tor: he would look at the intrinsic evi-' evi-' denec ibund in tho writing itself, j Counsel pointed out to the judgo the similarities iu style of the two uotes. He alluded to the theory of the assistant assist-ant prosecuting attorney that this writing was forged by the defence; yst Baker testified that ho had written no letters to any one from which his stylo could be obtained. Any mau familiar i with handwriling'must conolude that j thet-o two nutcs were written by ono man, uulcss ihaie were fraud or chicanery chica-nery in the ease. Jn conclusion, Mr. Pitch asked again if tho ovidcuco had shown any probable cause why the defendants de-fendants should be held for this mur-: mur-: der. j Tho couit adjuurued till 2 o'clock. Afternoon Session. Mr. Hcmpatcad closed the argument argu-ment lbr the defense. Ho aud he was, several years ago, engaged iB the preliminary examination to discover the guilty parties iu this horrid murder, mur-der, which investigation signally failed. He was as anxious as this prosecution can be to discover tho real murderers; but in any investigation there must be i evidence suhwni. to show the prob-! prob-! able euilt of the accused. In regard to Burt and Hampton there was no , evidence save that of Butterwood. He reviewed Butterwood's evidence; LLs movements on the day of the murder his losing himself in tho oily whore he , had lived ten or twelve years, and his I movements just before tho murder. He ; asked where Baker and Johnson I were at the time when Butterwood saw three or four men on the corner where Robinson was killed. Why dil not Baker and Jobnou bee tbo men I and women that Butterwood sworo to seeing? All corrobativ, cir.-uiijj-tauce. arc wanting as to the Mi .nhVaUoQ of any of these defendants. The baud writing of the two notes was referred to ana their similarities commented upon. The district attorney, Mr. Bates, made tho closing argument, commencing commenc-ing with an eloquent illustration of a scene in tho supreme court of tho United States, where a young lawyer on arguing his first case iu rxtenso was listened to a long time patiently by the court, till at last the chief justice was forced to remind the young gentleman that there were some propositions of , law that the court was supposed to be familiar with. The counsel coun-sel said, judging from the elaborate arguments of the learned counsel tor tho defense, they gave the court very slight eredit for knowledge. Worn the great effort of his learned friend Pitch eloquent and famous as he Ls in other fields in congress and in the lecture field it might be supposed that the result of this examination would be to send the defendants to the gallows, whon the only question now is as to whether there is evidence sufficient suffi-cient to send these defendants to the grand jury. The cnunsol then eloquently elo-quently depicted tho horrid murder of Dr. Robinson, and reviewed the main points of the evidence of the two principal witnesses. Ho characterized their bearing and appearance upon the stand as truthful and fair. Their stories showed no evidence of a conspiracy. They both heard the pistol shot, saw men running away; heard that a man was killed; both say1 they did not dare to tell the authorities authorit-ies for fear of their lives. They were brought hero by the government; they did not come as the witness Kramer cam voluntarily at the promoting of somebody else to relate a beautifully concocted story. The discrepancies in the testimony were noted as of Male account. The counsel freely admitted that he would not bring persons before tho bar of the court on trial for murder without some stronger evidence than he had now; and it was funny that the defense should have spent all day in arguing it, Tho evidence is suilic'ont to carry defendants before the grand jury. The alibi was regarded a3 a scheme cither concocted at the time of the murder or since. The exactness with which the witnesses to this testimony testi-mony detailed the circumstances as to games played and the time of the nicht shows plainly the rehearsal of an arranged ar-ranged plot. As to tho alleged handwriting of Baker and the Kramer testimony, Mr. Bates said if that thing was not managed manag-ed there is no light in the heavens or snow on the mountains. He characterized charac-terized it as a disgraceful trick; an insult in-sult to the court, but he did uot pretend pre-tend that the counsel for the defense were engaged in its concoction. In conclusion the district attorney said the only question for the court to decide is as to whether a probable case has been made out against the defendants. de-fendants. Judge MeKean then delivered his opinion, reviewing portions of tho evidence ev-idence at some length, and discharging Alexander Burt from custody, but holding the other defendants for an investigation of their eases before the grand jury, without admitting thorn fo bail. Not having a verbatim report of the language of this opinion, and desiring de-siring to do no injustice to the judge we await the official report, which will probably be furnished to the prea. |