
    
      Washtenaw Circuit.
    
    THE PEOPLE vs. SOPHIE LYONS.
    
      •Closing Argument to the Jury of Charles B. Whitman, Prosecuting Attorney, on the Second Trial.
    
    This is a cause celebre, not only to the citizens of Washtenaw Circuit, where it was tried three times, but the people of the whole State, as well as many in other portions of the country where the defendant is •so well known in criminal annals, watched with great and eager interest the progress of the different trials.
    Defendant was charged with the larceny of a watch from Mrs. Herrick Cornwells, of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw county, at the county fair held at Ann Arbor, on the 6th day of October, 1881. The first trial resulted in the conviction of the accused at the January term, A. D. 1882. The Supreme Court granted her a new trial. (49 Mich., 78.) The second trial occurred at the January term, 1883, and, like the first, was hotly and ably contested on both sides.
    On July 2, 1883, the Supreme Court again reversed the judgment of the court below, and granted a new trial. (16 N. W. Rep., 38.)
    In this last opinion the Supreme Court made a very great mistake as to one fact. They say impeaching testimony was introduced against Mrs. Theresa A. Lewis, the principal witness for the prosecution, and none in her support. Probably the record which went to Lansing so stated, but if so, there was an omission of important testimony, for a number of old citizens of Detroit, men of high standing, were witnesses in her behalf, including Alex. Chapaton, Sr., Alex Yisger, Ex-Sheriff E. Y. Cicott and Colin Campbell.
    On the second trial Col. Atkinson, counsel for respondent, directed the court reporter to take down the closing argument to the jury of Chas. E-. YHiitman, the able, not to say brilliant young prosecuting attorney of Washtenaw county, for the purpose of taking exceptions to it. He did not take exceptions, but his request to the reporter has enabled us to publish this gentleman’s eloquent argument, which is here given in full.
    CLOSING ARGUMENT TO THE JURY BY CHARLES R.
    WHITMAN, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY:
    Mat it Please the Court and Gentlemen op the Jory:
    In the first place let me say that the proposition is true, as stated by respondent’s counsel and as will be given to you by the court, that before you can convict this defendant, before you ought to convict her or a defendant in any criminal case, you should be satisfied beyond a
    REASONABLE DOUBT
    of the guilt of the accused. But in this connection I call your attention to one word, that you may not fail to give proper meaning to this expression. You observe that the expression is not !idoubt” alone. The statement is not that you must acquit unless satisfied beyond a doubt. The word u reasonable” is interposed before the word “doubt,” and it is your duty to recognize that this is for a purpose. It is undoubtedly true that to convict any innocent person is a great misfortune. It is a misfortune not only to the accused, but to the people at large. But you must also bear in mind that to acquit the guilty is also an injury and detriment to the whole public society. Let us consider for one moment, gentlemen, the bearing of this proposition. When you retire to your homes at night and lay your heads upon your pillows, what is it that, in the still hours of darkness, protects your lives and property? What is it, when you walk the streets in daylight, guards and shields your persons, and those of all of us, from the assassin’s bullet and personal violence ? It is not physical strength. In olden times, life and the rights of property were determined by individual prowess; those days are past. It is not by your strength or mine, or by the power of bolts and barSj that we hope to secure protection of life and property, but it is by the inviolable power of the law. If, gentlemen, every man or woman who was meditating the commission of an offence could know to an absolute certainty that punishment, even though slight, would follow as certainly upon the commission of the offence as pain will follow my putting my hand into the fire, we would have a solution Of that great problem — the effectual suppression of crime. It is because the whole fabric of human society must be protected by our criminal jurisprudence; because to acquit criminals is to afford hope to criminals ; it is in view of this that the word “reasonable” is in the words I have, cited. It shall be a “reasonable doubt.” Such a thing may exist as a “doubt” that-is captious; that is not based on judgment and good reason; not on tbe evidence in the case. Because, gentlemen, it is upon the evidence that you must determine what your verdict shall be. If the evidence itself produces a c ‘ doubt ’ ’ based upon logic, and reason, and judgment, this, and this only, is the “doubt” contemplated by the provisions of the law.
    Now, gentlemen, to deal with the evidence, in the trial of any case, there may be testimony undisputed establishing certain facts so conclusively that, upon them, the jury can have no doubt. Then there will be other testimony upon which there is contradiction. Let me first call your attention to the points which are so clearly proven that upon them there can be no contention. It appears that Mrs. Sarah Brew, of Detroit, is the housekeeper of Sophie Lyons, the defendant. It appears that defendant’s household consisted — at the time this offence was committed — of herself, her housekeeper, Sarah Brew, and Sarah Brew’s husband, with some little children. Those three were the only adults in the house, It appears, gentlemen, without any contradiction whatever, that upon the 6th day of October, a watch and chain were 'stolen here in Ann Arbor. They were expressed to the city of Detroit. The receipt was sent to Mrs. Sarah Brew. Whether it was delivered through the general post-office or at the house, is entirely irrelevant. That Mrs. Sarah Brew, upon receiving that receipt, instantly assumed that she was to go to the express office at Detroit and claim that package. In other words, gentlemen, it appears by uncontradicted evidence that Sarah Brew was an accomplice with some one who stole that watch. Now we have a starting point. Upon this there is no pretense of contradiction. Sarah Brew, Sophie Lyons’ housekeeper, was an accomplice with the person who stole that watch. A letter was sent to Sarah Brew; whether a letter was inclosed in the envelope, or merely the receipt was there, is immaterial. Sarah Brew takes that receipt in which the name “Sarah Smith” was given, and it is not the name of Sarah Brew, but instantly knowing and recognizing who “Sarah Smith” means, without any inquiry, she goes to the express office and demands the watch and chain. Is there, testimony denying this? Sarah Brew was an accomplice with the one who committed the offence. Gentlemen, who is it ?
    I think before I proceed farther I may properly call your attention to something which is a part of your duty, as I understand it, in this case. You sit here as sworn officers of the law. You are not to sit here with your eyes closed, you are not to be misled by things which ought not properly to lead you, but you are to discover the truth. In that we all agree.
    If in the trackless forest you are seeking to follow some inexperienced white man you look for footprints, broken twigs and branches. It will not take an expert woodsman to discover the track .if it was not ah expert woodsman who made it. But if this man is the subtle savage who seeks to escape pursuit, he breaks no twigs or branches; he
    COVERS HIS TEACKS
    in the soil with fallen leaves. You no longer expect to find these evident marks, but meet cunning with cunning, and educate eye and touch to find in the very dew brushed from the grass the broken trail. When you sit as jurors, as detectives to ferret out crime, yon do not expect these outlaws, these savages of society, to shout their guilt from the hill-tops. You turn from search for broad trails of guilt to those subtle points which, while less evident, are not the less conclusive to keen and observant apprehension. And the more true is this when it is the expert and not the blunderer who is the criminal. Gentlemen, you are here to discover the expert who has committed this offence, for it was done by fingers better educated to crime than those of any pickpocket who lives in Ann Arbor. Mrs. Cornwell went into floral hall with her watch and chain wrapped in her pocket handkerchief. Did any common pickpocket know she had it there ? Did any common pickpocket secure that watch and chain in a crowd so swiftly that no person could know it? Was it an expert or a blunderer? Gentlemen, it is your duty, if you can, to follow this track through the forest, the trail of this expert, this adept, and find the person with whom Sarah Brew was an accomplice. Was it some one else than Sophie Lyons ? If so, why was the watch sent to Sarah Smith ? Have you any explanation here ? Why should any person other than Sophie Lyons, who had stolen the watch and chain, send it to Sarah Smith, and send the receipt to Sarah Brew by mail ? Sarah Smith is not Sarah Brew. If some third person is guilty, and meant to send the package to Sophie Lyons, the receipt would have come to Sophie Lyons also. But if it was stolen by Sophie Lyons, she would know Sophie Lyons was not at homey but here. Her housekeeper was there to receive it. To her then was intrusted the receipt by mail, and the recovery of the package from the express office. Further, why was Sarah Smith selected as the one to whom this receipt should be sent and in whose name it was given ? Gentlemen, you know this person in court as Sophie Lyons, but it is
    NOT THE ONLY NAME
    by which she is known. If a person is a crook, he may have two or three names, aliases, which among the sporting fraternity are fully understood to represent him. Such is the alias of Sophie Lyons. It is uncontradicted that, in Jackson, Sophie Lyons lived as Sarah Smith. Sarah Smith was Sophie Lyons. That is not denied. The express receipt was sent to Sarah Brew because she was at home and Sophie Lyons was not, but the package was sent to Sarah Smith, which is Sophie Lyons’ other self, and the housekeeper was sent to claim the package. There is that in this case which cannot be explained away — this express receipt sticks like pitch to their fingers, and they cannot shake it off. There is no doubt this case has been most thoroughly defended I cannot profess in my feeble way to contend with the ability and subtlety manifested by the most able and eloquent counsel who appear here on the part of the defense. It is not to be supposed that Washtenaw county can supply talent of that high order. The accused has ■ been defended and defended well. The gentlemen who represent her are able, and cunning, and shrewd, and strong. They are powerful! Everything which legal talent, touching appeal and fierce invective can accomplish, has been done in behalf of this defendant. Why, gentlemen even when an honest farmer’s wife takes the stand, the wife of Othniel, Gooding, of York, a woman who never told a lie in her life, a woman who stands unblemished in this county, even she can be branded by these counsel as a perjurer.
    Col. Atkinson — Do you mean to say that I ever said any such thing of that lady?
    Mr. Whitman — I do.
    Col. Atkinson — It is false.
    Mr. Whitman — The jury will remember it. I think it is so. I repeat, that to the best of my recollection, in commenting upon the testimony of Mrs. Gooding, it was pronounced perjury by the able counsel. If her testimony is true, then Sophie Lyons was in floral hall and by the victim’s side when the watch was stolen. These facts exist, but they are not all. There are other facts in this case which can not be met. It is not only true that the watch and chain were stolen in Ann Arbor and sent to the accomplice in Detroit; it is not only true that we have traced the stolen property into the actual possession and custody of this defendant, but there is other testimony in the case. I was not here yesterday afternoon, gentlemen. It was physically impossible for me to be present during Mr. Lawrence’s argument, but I am informed that Mr. Lawrence criticised the testimony of Mr. Joseph Watts that he saw Sophie Lyons in Ann Arbor that day. Gentlemen, it is to me a matter of peculiar surprise to find any counsel, or any man who is personally acquainted with Mr. Joseph Watts, undertaking to say that he is a man who says things concerning which he knows not. If there is a careful, conscien-. tious, prudent, man it is, Mr. Joseph Watts. If any of you, gentlemen of the jury, are personally acquainted with him, your own experience will bear me out in that statement.
    I will now take in their order the witnesses who saw Sophie Lyons in Ann Arbor, and endeavor to assist you in determining whether they are probably correct as to having seen her here that day. In the first place there is Mr. Hogan, the balloonist from Jackson. I remember that counsel in making his argument stated that Mr. Hogan had seen Sophie Lyons hut two or three times. Gentlemen, it is not true. It is a mistake. Mr. Hogan has seen Sophie Lyons more than two or three times. Counsel very carefully refrained from cross-examining him as to the extent of his knowledge. To have done so would have revealed an extent of knowledge that would have been damaging to the defendant. Hogan lived in Jackson and knew Sophie Lyons. For weeks she had been known in Jackson as well as any person in Ann Arbor. Mr. Hogan, a laboring man, had seen her there and knew her. And while it is true that it would be utterly impossible for a person who has seen a lady — this defendant — only muffled and wrapped so that he could not see her face to swear to her identity from that external appearance ; — unless he can hear and recognize the voice or is so familiar with the person as to know the walk ; — while this is true, there is another thing equally true; if you have had occasion to observe the face of this defendant you will know that it is a face which once seen will never be forgtten. It is a peculiar face, if I may be permitted to say so. It is a face in which the features are strongly marked. I do not wish to go into detail. It might be offensive, and I do not wish to be so, but suffice it to say that it is a face that will not be forgotten, which, if you see again,you will recognize upon the spot. I place no value upon the recognition, the identification, of this defendant by any persons who did not see her, or upon any testimony whose value depends upon seeing her pass merely upon the sidewalk. Mr. Hogan knew the defendant. She passed within a few feet of him. He instantly identified her, and there is a circumstance connected with it which fixes it in his mind which we could not go into on the trial, and the cross-examination declined to. A little boy came upon the stand. Children are keen observers, and frequently more so than older persons. That little boy had lived three years in Detroit across the street from this defendant. I suppose he hád seen her a thousand times. I suppose the person of this defendant was as familiar to him as that of any member of his own family. Another thing fixes this identity to this boy- — I may say the same of the others who saw her here that day — when they saw Sophie Lyons it was an unexpected spectacle. They had no reason to expect she would be here that day. Put the child in Detroit, where she lives and where she is often seen on the streets, it would not attract the attention so as to enable him to remember seeing her. But if you should meet to-day on the streets a man of notoriety whom you had never seen here before, you would observe him with a closeness that you would not under other circumstances. This little boy saw Sophie coming down the street, across the street on the path which would lead her by the store of Mr. Watts, where Joseph Watts identified her. True, on cross-examination, the boy would not ■swear positively it was she. He had no expectation of seeing her that day, bnt he thought he saw Sophie Lyons. Another peculiar thing. These persons, Schaible, Hogan and Watts, agree to a general costume worn by this defendant. Now, gentlemen, we differ as to the accuracy with which we recollect such matters. I may say in regard to any one of the lady witnesses who have been upon the stand, I would not be able to state whether she wore a hat, or cloak, or bonnet ; and while I could identify the face, I could not tell how she was was dressed. The testimony as to the details of defendant’s dress will not be accurate, you could not expect it to be, yet we see a wonderful uniformity in this respect. All these persons put upon her a broad-brimmed hat and a loose-fitting circular garment. In the first place the loose-fitting circular garment appears to have been one of these waterproof garments which ladies wear. If close to it you could identify it as waterproof; across the room perhaps you could not. In all cases it is a broad-brimmed hat. And those are witnesses who are gathered from the four quarters, and come in here with no interest, or intention, or object in telling what is not true. They tell what they saw, and their testimony harmonizes as to the general outline of the lady’s dress that day. Another witness, Mr. Bailey, you remember, was in floral hall at the time the larceny was committed. Sophie Lyons had been pointed out to him on the cars. He had sat close to her, and scrutinized her out of pardonable curiosity, and her peculiar face had abided in his memory. When it was announced to him that this watch had been taken, it flashed upon him that he had seen that same face in the sea of faces in floral hall. Eddie Schaible saw her in the road she would take in going by Watts’ store. In the door stood Watts, and as she passed he instantly recognized her as Sophie Lyons, whom he knew to be Sophie Lyons-If he was mistaken, why is it he was not cross-examined in that regard? No one claims he would tell a lie, or would tell what is not true- If the counsel think that he was mistaken, why did they not interrogate; him upon the stand ? Did they ask him a question ? Not one. Gentlemen, there are
    VARIOUS KINDS OP WITNESSES.
    Those who testify as to facts which they know. There are those who are not certain, and there are those who are simply mistaken or are wilfully corrupt. Of all these there is one whom it is not safe to cross-examine, if you want to contradict his testimony. That is the straight-forward, honest business man, who knows what he is talking about. The quicker you get him off the stand, if his testimony is against you, the better. That is the reason they did not cross-examine Joe Watts. It would show reasons why he knew it was Sophie Lyons, for if she was in Ann Arbor that day she was not in Detroit, and this alibi is a farce.
    I have another point for you to consider. I ask you, and in all candor, why was it that, when defendant came to Ann Arbor to answer to this charge, she came disguised — wearing a blonde wig to give to her brunette countenance the appearance of a blonde? Why is it that, pending the examination in the justice’s court, pending the first trial in this court, pending this trial in this court, — why is it that at this very minute the defendant sits there shrouded and veiled and covered as she is ? Why is it? Is it modesty? Is it a sense of personal propriety? There are ladies in this audience who are as honest as any in this land, who do not think of disguising themselves. There is nothing here to shame this defendant or any lady who sees fit tó sit in this room. Why is it? AVhy, gentlemen, I have been challenged here to show that Sophie Lyons was in Ann Arbor that day. I have been challenged to produce more testimony to prove her identity ; but how closely and carefully she has taken away all opportunity for doing that. She does not dare turn and face that audience. Why ?
    You remember when Mrs. Gooding was upon the-stand, — sitting there the honest farmer’s wife that she is, — the question was asked if she could identify the ^defendant. The Court then ordered Sophie Lyons to unveil, and she sprang like a panther, tore her wrappings from head and face and rushed to the witness, thrusting her face close up to hers, with the manifest effort to startle and frighten and confuse this country woman,— changing the expression of her countenance with the glare of her eyes that few of us could see. But did you notice how carefully, in the midst of that pretended excitement, she again veiled her features before turning to meet the eyes of the audience which she must face to resume her seat? Why was it? Because back of her was a crowd in which were perhaps 100 persons who, when they saw those features, would say, “ I saw that face on the 6th of October.” For the room was filled with bright, intelligent students in all departments of the university, many of whom were here in October, 1881, on the streets and on the fair grounds; many of' whom may have seen that peculiar face, which, once seen, is never forgotten. It was for that and nothing else.
    Sophie Lyons — (Sobbing violently) — “ 0, my little ■children \”
    
    Col. Atkinson objected to the argument as unjust to the defendant.
    Mr. Whitman — It is not necessary for me to say to those who know me that there is no bitterness towards this defendant. I may say truly that I am not capable of any such thing. I am the last man to stand here for the purpose of hurting this defendant, even though she should be guilty of worse offenses than that with which she is charged here.- I believe that in every case the respondent .-should be tried on the charge with which he is accused. That the question of guilt or innocence, should be determined by the evidence in that case. If I, in the argument of this case, am unfair and unjust, if I state things as being true which are not true, I ask you, gentlemen, to judge me harshly for so doing. But, gentlemen, if in the performance of my official duty, if in the performance of my duty to the people of this county, I shall comment to you upon a fact which appears not only in evidence but before your own eyes as a legitimate inference of guilt, then, gentlemen, you must attribute it to my duty, to the unfortunate truth of that fact, not to any desire to hurt the feelings of this defendant. Bo not consider, gentlemen, that the administration of justice is in the spirit of revenge. The father who punishes his child, if he be a true parent, does it not from feelings of revenge or ill will toward the little unfortunate, but because he considers the welfare of his child. And so in our criminal jurisprudence, in dealing with one who stands charged with an offence — that he is weak, that he is human, is no reason why he should be acquitted. We must not select friendless ones with none to protect. The arm of the
    LAW MUST BEACII ALL ALIKE.
    We must not confine the machinery of the criminal law to those who have no wives, no husbands, no children. There must be no favoritism here. I would fail in my duty if I permitted you for a moment to think it was in your province to allow such a thing. I. may in the performance of my duty lead you in the performance of your duty as jurors, to pronounce the verdict of guilty against some unfortunate being, and even though the circumstances be such that your hearts will bleed with pity, yet your verdict cannot be otherwise. If there is mercy to be administered, it is to be administered by the court. It is for the officers of the law, for the jury to say whether the offence has been committed. I know that you cannot claim that every one who commits an offence has no heart and no feelings. Nay, you cannot claim that even the wickedest man on earth,, the most abandoned man who ever lived, is incapable of suffering, of feeling sorrow. But for that reason, gentlemen, you cannot fail to administer fully the laws which are designed for the protection even of that very individual as an atom of society which is shielded and protected by those laws.
    I remember that the testimony of Mrs. Gooding was criticised because it was claimed there was some slight discrepancy between it and that of Mrs. Cornwell, as-to the person who picked the handkerchief from the ground. Gentlemen, minute differences between the statements of two persons do not necessarily prove that either lies. Let an assault be committed on the streets in view of a crowd. The question was, ‘ ‘ Did A strike B first, or vice versa?” “Before the striking what words did A or B use?” You will bear witness with me, if you have attended such atrial, that scarcely any two persons will agree minutely as to the words said or the acts done. One person will catch one thing more prominently than another. Mrs. Cornwell was a feeble old lady, so feeble, in fact, that counsel kindly consented that we mighx read her testimony, it being almost a physical impossibility for her to go upon the stand. That feeble, nervous old lady testified in the re-direct examination that she did not know whether she picked her handkerchirf from the .ground, or somebody picked it up and gave it to her. Weigh the testimony of Mrs. Cornwell, who undoubtedly tells this incident as she remembers it; and that of Mrs. Gooding, who undoubtedly also testifies to it as she remembers it. Mrs. Gooding testifies that this woman with the broad-brimmed hat took part officiously to get the crowd to stand back. What for? To hunt for the handkerchief. How did she know it was on the ground? The pickpocket who took the watch and chain and handkerchief from Mrs. Cornwell, took out the watch and chain and dropped the handkerchief upon the ground. There was but one individual in that crowd who knew that that handkerchief had been dropped upon the floor, and that was the one who dropped it. Why was it, in the crowd so dense that one could scarcely move, that the moment the old lady cried out that her “ watch and chain ” were gone this woman with the broad brimmed hat, this woman who is identified by Mrs. Gooding as this defendant, told the crowd to stand back until .she could find the handkerchief upon the ground? What made this woman get down upon the ground and hunt .around among the feet of the people? Mrs. Cornwell does not say that she herself stooped and picked that handkerchief from the ground, and there is nothing in the testimony of Mrs. Gooding that it was picked up and handed to the old lady inconsistent with the testimony of Mrs. Cornwell. You observe that the effort to show that what Mrs. Gooding swore to was untrue falls to the ground. It is the common experience of mankind that professional pickpockets are very fast to turn and profess to give assistance to the party whom they have just robbed. It is a common trick among the profession to divert suspicion. It is one which is to be expected, and especially here in this crowd, where the person — the woman who had taken the watch and chain could not hope to escape by rushing away. For, the moment she tried, every one who saw her going would have cried “ Stop thief! ” A common thief would have tried to work out of the crowd as soon as possible, but the expert takes your purse, puts it into his pocket, and turns to you saying, “ My dear sir, can I help you to find your property ? ” Gentlemen, I have pointed out to you the direct evidence of the guilt of this defendant, and that evidence is entirely sufficient, without other testimony. She was in that floral hall when that watch and chain were taken. She instantly fell on the ground to hunt the handkerchief whose loss she only could know. That she was on the fair ground and in the streets of Ann Arbor that day is established. The property was stolen and expressed from Ann Arbor to herself in the city of Detroit. The express receipt was sent to her housekeeper,- Sarah Brew, at Detroit. This express receipt we have taken out of the very hands of Sophie Lyons at that place. This, I say, gentlemen, without proceeding any farther in the case, establishes the guilt of this defendant beyond, I will not say a “ reasonable doubt,” but beyond any “ doubt.”
    But something further.
    MRS. THERESA A, LEWIS APPEARS AS A WITNESS
    upon the stand. . Her testimony, in my view of this case, is not absolutely essential. Under the facts as they' appear, the guilt of this defendant is established without that testimony, yet we will examine it. I would have you understand, gentlemen, that I appear in this case as a defender of no one; the fact that a-witness is produced by the prosecution secures from me no different treatment or consideration than if he were produced by the respondent. It is simply my duty to produce all available testimony bearing on the case, even though that testimony is not necessary, and the other is sufficient. Still, it is my duty to produce all, and I have done so. For some reason, gentlemen, there seems to have been made in this case a peculiar onslaught upon Mrs. Theresa A. Lewis. She has not alone been attacked with all the bitterness and venom of which counsel is capable, but it seems that from the time in Detroit when she commenced to track Sophie Lyons and Bob. McKinney in certain quarters, she herself has been hunted down, and a determination has been shown to-crush her, gentlemen. There may be something worthy of our consideration on the other side. Let us see. Let no injustice be done to this defendant, and at the same time, gentlemen, let no injustice be done to any one who has appeared as a witness against her. The testimony shows that for some reason the superintendent of police in Detroit offered Mrs. Lewis a reward to secure the conviction of Sophie Lyons and Bob. McKinney. At the time when the James Brothers in Missouri were robbing and murdering defenceless passengers, and rendering themselves a terror to the State and the whole country, Gov. Crittenden offered a reward for them, dead or alive, and the sentiment of the world applauded his act. Gentlemen, bad men may pursue a career so vicious, so intolerable, so hostile to law, that society absolutely demands that their course shall be stopped. In the absence of any showing to the contrary, we must assume that Superintendent Rogers, who is produced by counsel here as a decent man, is justified in making the offer which he did. The offer he made was to obtain evidence which would obtain the conviction of persons whose lives had been such as to render it for the good of the community that they should be put where they could do no more mischief. We must assume that the police commissioners of Detroit, — and I see that counsel here turns, and attacks these gentlemen. He even laments that they live in Detroit. Yet we must assume that the men who are police commissioners, who are kept and maintained in their honorable position, who have in charge the life and property of the citizens of Detroit, that those men are honorable men, and that in determining, that some criminals must be secured, they were considering the welfare of the community. Witnesses whom counsel here bring upon the stand to attack the reputation of Mrs. Lewis, themselves say that before her good name had been undermined by the efforts, agency and co-operation of the persons whom she was following, they had known nothing against her. There is but one criminal charge against Mrs. Lewis. For this she was arraigned in the police court of the city of Detroit, as appears here in the testimony. The charge was that of stealing property from this defendant; and her reply was, “I took it from the defendant’s house under the instructions of the superintendent of police for him to identify.” This was denied by the superintendent and, after a lengthy examination, his honor, Judge Miner, took her word as against that of Mr. Rogers, and discharged her. Her memoranda in this very book, which I shall read to you, show she had become suspicious of the honesty of Mr. Rogers in his dealing with crooks in Detroit, and had begun to fear that he was simply planning and plotting to protect the very persons he pretended to be following. Up to the time of the charge against Mrs. Lewis that she had taken property from the house of the defendant, there was not a whisper against her. No one claims that she had stolen, or been guilty of any crime against the State or of an immoral act. The only charge was that she was poor and undertook the duty of a detective under Superintendent Rogers for pay, and the whole attack has arisen out of that proceeding in the police court. Bob. McKinney and others found Mrs. Lewis was on their track and obtaining evidence against them. They could go to work through channels they possess which fairly honeycomb society. They could run arouhd and repeat, “ She is a liar,” until others, impressed by the reiterating, come to say that they had heard this and that, and they would not believe her under oath, and the result is gained — to break and ruin the reputation of the woman so that it should not be good when she comes upon the stand. The reputation of some of you gentlemen of the jury may be ruined by such a course as that; and you cannot help yourselves. Gentlemen, Mrs. Lewis is certainly a human being, made of flesh and blood, subject to the failings of others. This is now the fourth time she has been upon the .stand, subjected to the
    MOST PITILESS AND MERCILESS CROSS-EXAMINATION EVER LISTENED TO.
    Nor more than a year counsel have known her story. They have had opportunity by detectives to hunt and search and find a crack or crevice in the structure of her testimony. They have sought high and low, far •and wide, and now Mrs. Lewis comes upon this stand a mortal. She was cross-examined most ably, most thoroughly, most keenly, by Mr. Hawley. Then, gentlemen, although, it was against the rules of practice, and I was under no obligation to submit to anything of that sort, after John G. Hawley had pumped himself dry, Mr. Atkinson pumped himself dry also. And every question he asked only intensified your conviction of the truth of that woman’s testimony. I tell you. that woman made of flesh and blood could never come upon thé stand and go through such a seige as that if her testimony was a lie. Now, gentlemen, let us see what attacks have been made, what criticisms upon her testimony. It has been said that she receives pay for her testimony. If counsel mean by that that the officers of this county are intending to pay Mrs. Lewis, I make no feply. If it is meant that the police commissioners of Detroit intend to pay her something, then I say the police commissioners will show to Mrs.. Lewis her receipt in full for her expenses, and will say, “You cannot get any more." How is Mrs. Lewis to get-compensation for anything she does here except ten cents a mile and $1.00 a day? What is it that could give to a perjurer strength to carry her on the stand through, such an ordeal as this? 0, but, Col. Atkinson says, this is all done to show the power of some wealthy seducer-in Detroit. What does the counsel mean? That Sophie Lyons was seduced? If so, heaven help the seducer! Counsel reads to you one passage from this memorandum book. He makes the statement that -the passage was preceded by matters a year later in date. Also he says -this professes to be memoranda made at the time the incidents took place, and claims that this was-an original memorandum. I have the testimony here that Mrs. Lewis expressly swore the entries were made long after, as a mere recapitulation of events. Bear in mind there has been no evidence that the prosecution was disposed to conceal anything bearing upon the testimony of Mrs. Lewis. I offered all the assistance in my power to enable counsel to make a fair and complete examination of Mrs. Lewis. Now, when it came to the question of her having some papers, I joined in the request that she .should bring them into court and let you look at them. Counsel states that on a former trial she testified from a book which is not here. That is not true. The one from which she testified is here. That is the identical book.
    Col. Atkinson insisted that he was misrepresented.
    Mr. Whitman — I once more repeat, gentlemen, I say these books were brought into court by Mrs. Lewis, I joining in the request with counsel for the defense that any book or paper she might have bearing upon this case should be brought into court. This book was produced. It was used upon the former trial to refresh her recollection. Her statement in regard to it was that she had various books, had one in the pocket of one dress, and another in another dress, and she would take out the book in the pocket of the dress she had on, and make a memorandum. She did not make these memoranda in order. That is my recollection in regard to the black book.
    In the first place this book-
    Col. Atkinson — I do not understand that this book is in evidence, except what has been read.
    Mr. Whitman — Gentlemen, when these books were brought, counsel used those parts from which, as he claimed, it appeared that witness was testifying to what was not true. I offered the whole books in evidence. Counsel objected. I had no right to put them in, and he had.
    Col. Atkinson — Counsel has no right to comment upon evidence that was excluded.
    Mr. Whitman — I am commenting properly upon the failure of counsel to connect certain pieces of evidence with others. If counsel puts in his evidence piecemeal, I may comment upon his omission to put in the rest, especially when he argues to the jury that if the whole of that book were in evidence it would contradict her testimony.
    It ought to be true of the argument of a case before a jury, as in ordinary business transactions, that fairness and candor of dealing will command confidence. Dealing which is different from that ought to exeite suspicion and distrust. It is possible that any counsel in arguing a case may, without intention, misstate the testimony, but, gentlemen — and I ask you to apply it to myself as I stand here and present this case to you— if you believe that any counsel is wilfully and deliberately trying to mislead you as to the testimony, it is your privilege to believe that the dishonesty goes farther. Gentlemen, a long and labored argument was made this morning, a most earnest effort, to break down the testimony of Mrs. Lewis upon the ground that that leaf which was passed through the hands of these jurors with the statement that she testified it was made at one and the same time, showed upon its face that she had sworn to a lie. I sat in my seat and listened to that statement. I permitted counsel to make it, because I knew that the gentlemen sitting upon the jury here would understand the falsity and dishonesty of such an argument. Now I will read to you from the testimony of Mrs. Lewis in that regard, and we will see. The point was that she testified that she wrote that page on the 5th of October, and the force of the attack lay in the fact that it recited events which occurred on the 6th. Therefore Mrs. Lewis had lied, and if she had lied in that respect she had lied in others also. Am I not right, gentlemen % 
      Here is Mrs. Lewis’ testimony, which the stenographer has copied for me.
    ' [Mr. Whitman read from the same, showing the leaf was written after the 6th of October.]
    And yet counsel planned a deliberate attack upon the veracity of Mrs. Lewis, deliberately asked you by your verdict to pronounce her a perjurer, because she had sworn that paper was made on the 5th of October, and on its face it shows it could not have been. Gentlemen, such arguments as that cannot win verdicts from the hands of honest and intelligent jurors, and they ought not.
    There is something further. It was insisted here before you that Mrs. Lewis’ testimony was false, and it was intimated that the falsity of that testimony could not be ascertained because — and the counsel used this expression — because the cross-examination was “hampered.” Is there any man upon this jury who thinks that I “hampered” the cross-examination of Mrs. Lewis? Any man who thinks that, from the beginning to the end of the trial, I have “hampered” counsel upon anything they could drag out, material or immaterial,, that had or was claimed to have a bearing upon this case ? I protest I have sat here with the earnest effort to get at the truth, whatever it might be. If that establishes the innocence of this defendant, I trust that I am man enough and honest enough to ask you to acquit her of this charge. I protest, gentlemen, that this has been a fair trial. I protest that every latitude under heaven has been permitted to counsel in taking the testimony in this case. I do remember one instance where I did not let them run. That was in Mr. Rogers’ testimony, when counsel put that man on the stand and tried to make him swear to something that was not true; tried to put words in his mouth and instruct him how he was wanted to swear. I objected. I declared that that man knew enough to tell what he knew without being instructed.
    It has been urged here, although there is not one scintilla of evidence to base such a thing upon, that
    PEBSONS IN DETBOIT AND JACKSON
    had been laboring to secure the conviction of this defendant, and are in some measure responsible for this trial I give counsel and the world now to understand that I take upon my own shoulders the responsibility of this prosecution. And when I take upon my hands the prosecution of a criminal case, I care not who it is who is prosecuted, — I ask no man’s consent. I ask nothing but the approval of my own conscience and my own judgment. If there have been influences abroad anywhere which were exercised against this defendant, I have never seen nor felt them. Nay, I have been conscious in the prosecution of this case of a weight, a push, an energy and labor seeking to counterbalance all the efforts of the prosecution. The counsel argues that Rogers’ testimony falsifies that of Mrs. Lewis in an important particular. Mrs. Lewis swears that on the evening of the 6th of October, she reported to Mr. Rogers that Sophie Lyons had come out here. Rogers denies this. Who is telling the truth ? On the morning of the 7th of October, the express agent was notified not to deliver this package. Why 1 The parcel was taken and given by Mr. Seeley to Superintendent Rogers. Why? If the information came from Mrs. Lewis to Superintendent Rogers, as she swears, on the evening of the 6th, then early on the morning of the 7th the Superintendent could have notified them to look out for parcels coming to Sarah Smith or Mrs. Lyons. But if Mrs. Lewis did not tell that, if it be true that a conspiracy was formed to make up a case against respondent and some one came out here, found out Mrs. Cornwell, stole the watch and sent it to Sarah Smith for the express purpose of having Sophie Lyons arrested, — a very thin plot, I think there might have been a much better arrangement, — if that was the scheme, then Mr. Rogers must have been in the conspiracy ; Mr. Seeley, the express agent in Detroit, must have been in the conspiracy. Nay, if such a conspiracy existed, some one came to Ann Arbor, went on the fair ground and committed this theft, and did not even take pains to see that the day it was done Sophie was out of Detroit. They were even so indiscreet in their conspiracy as to steal the watch in Ann Arbor on the identical day she was on the streets of Detroit. But, gentlemen, that is very “thin.” That is very poor stuff to present before a jury in the face of the facts as they appear in this case.
    Now, gentlemen, to meet this case, we come to a so-called alibi. It is right and proper that you, sitting here as officers of the law, carefully and intently to analyze this testimony and discover the truth, should Tbe warned of the
    CHABACTEJR OE AN ALIBI.
    It is the favorite device of criminals to escape conviction. It is the last resort, I may say, in the absence of anything else’ by which to secure acquittal. There is testimony of his presence at the place, and of his guilt. There is seemingly no question that he ought to be convicted, but he proves that he was somewhere else. You, of course, perceive how easy it is to manufacture an alibi. Your common intelligence shows you how readily it may be done, how commonly it may be done. The accused has an almost unlimited time in which to prepare his defence. This alibi may consist of. mixed testimony — that of persons who think they are swearing to the truth, and that of those who know they are swearing falsely. And in this mingling of the mistaken with the false, frequently juries are hoodwinked and misled, and the guilty escape punishment which ought to follów their crime. You should understand the facility with which a person charged with crime may create an alibi, one whose acquaintapces, friendships and associates run out through all the strata of the class that may be most efficiently used for that purpose. You should look into an alibi closely and critically. From the necessity of the case the persons who are brought to establish the alibi are persons of whom you cannot be forewarned. The names of the witnesses oh the part of the people are endorsed upon the information, and the defense have the opportunity of knowing every witness the prosecution will bring. It is not so of witnesses on the part of the defense. The witnesses to be sworn to prove an alibi cannot be anticipated. Every witness comes a total stranger to me as to you. The alibi may be so planned and shrewdly disclosed that it is almost impossible to meet the witnesses when produced upon the stand, from the very fact that the prosecution. being unable to know who and what the witnesses are, is obliged to take their story as they tell it. That is why it may be done so easily. It is yonr duty to examine with more than usual closeness the character of these alibi witnesses and their testimony. In the first place, gentlemen, I may remind you that when I speak of events occurring to-day or yesterday, I can be certain of the time, but when I first speak of them a. year and a half or two years afterwards, then, gentlemen, dates become uncertain. It is fair to say of witnesses who were in a position to know at the time of the first trial one year ago what the issue here was, and that an alibi was to be established, who were known to the défense, who failed to appear then, and como here for the first time to day, you are to examine their testimony with more than common closeness and shrewdness. The presumption is strong that it is made up. The presumption is almost irresistible that some one has gone to these witnesses and said, “See here, do you remember seeing such a person at such a time and place ? ’ ’ The witness says, 1 ‘ Well, I don’t know, I don’t remember.” “Don’t you remember meeting her at such a time?” Finally he says, “Well, I declare, I don’t know but I do remember it.” And the next thing is that we have him on the stand and swearing, “I saw her.” I say the presumption is almost irresistible that such witnesses are entitled to-no credit or consideration at your hands.
    But, gentlemen, let us consider here together a few mimites what this alibi is. The defense elect to establish an alibi. They must stand or fall by their alibi. It comes in here as a whole. I do not see how they can separate it. The alibi consists of averments that on the 6th of October when this watch was stolen, at a quarter to ten, at noon, and in the afternoon, Sophie Lyons was in Detroit. Here is the alibi. Here is every averment which they state to establish it. Let us see if they succeed. Of course, gentlemen, I have pointed out to you before that you and I will have to take the testimony as they bring it here. But, gentlemen, neither you nor I nor anybody else is obliged to believe a man knows what he is talking about simply because he swears to it, or to believe he tells the truth simply because he swears to it. Let us take the counts in their order. In the first place, this eminent practitioner, this clean and noble attorney from Detroit, Mr. Jackson, appears, the peer of any one. Why, gentlemen, it only requires a man to appear as a witness in a case ior him to receive at the hands of his counsel a eulogy over his character that is only second to that which is pronounced upon his death. It is astonishing how the virtues of a man increase in proportion to the necessities of the case. And here once more I am obliged to challenge a statement made by counsel. The counsel told you in speaking of Jackson that he was an old acquaintance, or had known Sophie Lyons. Now, gentlemen, I will tell you what is the truth about that testimony, and I will ask you to correct me if I am in •error. My recollection is that on the 5th of October he •saw Sophie Lyons get on a street car, and while he was standing on the street car somebody said that was Sophie Lyons, and he said that was the first time he ever saw her, and he knew her then because somebody said it was she. She got into the street car and rode down the street. At a quarter to ten on the 6th of October he was walking through the corridor of the city hall, and says he saw her, and the statement of counsel that he stopped and watched her go somewhere else is almost as accurate as the statement of counsel yesterday. There is nothing to fix that event in the recollection of the witness. You cannot tell the person you met a week ago, and if you remember the meeting you cannot the day without there is something to connect the two. Here is the point in Jackson’s testimony. Remember how closely it is proven that the officers watched all the forenoon of the 6th. How in the mischief did Sophie Lyons get down town without their seeing her \ That was shown for the purpose of proving that Mrs. Lewis did not get in the house. But you will also remember that Mrs. Lewis entered the house from the rear, from 24th street, at the side entrance, which was hidden from the view of the officers, but the Fort street car which Sophie Lyons would take in going down town was open to the inspection of the officers all the time. The watch does not prove that Mrs. Lewis did not go in there, but it does prove that Mrs. Lyons did not go out. We come to noon. A witness was put upon the stand by the name of Bradford. We have Bradford, and Stadler, and Gilman about noon. Bradford swears that at noon on the 6th of October he saw Sophie Lyons and Bob. together near Mechanics’ 'block, right across the street from the city hall, right openly in the city at noon, right by the city hall. Gilman swears that he saw Sophie in the corridor of the city hall the day he was there with Paddy Ryan. Gentlemen, in this connection I want to show you something curious about Gil-man’s testimony. You remember Gilman swore he> Is the man who kept a restaurant in Detroit, swore Paddy Ryan came to him on the morning of the 5th, and he and Paddy were in the city hall and in the chief’s office. Counsel questioned witness in this way: “ On the day you paid that rent did you have occasion to go to the city hall?” etc. Counsel asks, “Had you been there the day before?” That is leading the witness. I call your attention to the persistent effort of the learned counsel to make Gilman swear he was there twice. “Had you been there before?” “What can you say as to your being in the city hall before with Mr. Ryan?” Then again: “What time did you say you went into the city hall with Mr. Ryan that day?” “I think between 11 and 12,” — the same time that Berger saw him in the front office, and Williams and Manning. “Will you state whether at any other time you were in the city hall?” “I cannot state.” “Can you state whether you had been out with Mr. Ryan the day before, whether you had been out with him any other time ?” “ Yes I had been out —but he does not say In the city hall. See the effort counsel makes to get Gilman to swear he was in there twice. Why ? In the trial of cases we only want facts. As a matter of fact Gilman and Paddy Ryan were in the chief’s office only once. Gilman knew it. But the difficulty was that in some way it had been learned that the proof would show here that the day Paddy Ryan and Gilman were in the chief’s office was on the 5th and not the 6th. Then they tried to make out that although the witness was in the chief’s office on the 6th he was there the day before also, that they might get two days so they could say“ Yery well, if one day was the 5th the other was the 6th.” Was that honest? Was that right? That disposes of Mr. Gil-man. We come to Stadler, the officer who came down stairs. Let us see if there was any effort in his case to make the witness swear to what was not true. Remember he was employed in the
    NORRIS MURDER TRIAL.
    When did that commence ? The 6th of October, 1881 ? The fact is that trial commenced on the 5th of October. Stadler was brought here from Detroit to swear, if he could, that he saw Sophie Lyons on the 6th, and to try to fix it at the city hall. “Did you have any occasion to go down stairs on the 6th or second day of the trial ?” Why was that question asked and the question before that? Was that for the purpose of notifying the witness that he had made a mistake, that the first day of the trial was on the 5th, and he must swear it was on the second day he saw her or it would do them no good? Was it, or was it not? “I went down on the 6th of October, I think. I was an important witness, etc.” “What time of day? . After 11 o’clock?” “Probably a little after 11 o’clock.” The truth of the matter is the testimony shows that Sophie Lyons and Bob. McKinney were in the city hall and about the city hall between 11 and 12 o’clock of the 5th. That is the only day they were in Detroit. Counsel again asks : ‘ ‘ This would be the 6th that you went down?” “Yes.” “You answered it was on the 6th of October, and the second day of the trial —he had never sworn that. “No sir, ittuas the first day of the trial.” They bring Mr. Maitland, the court stenographer, who swears the first day of the trial was the 5th, and Stadler fixes the time that he saw Sophie Lyons as the first day of the trial. The first day he said was the 6th and it was really the 5th. Stadler conld not swear to what he ought. Counsel tried over and over to make him see it and he could not. Now we come to the afternoon alibi. First we have Crissup’s testimony. He saw Sophie Lyons from 2 to half-past 2, just as he was coming down from dinner. He was on his way from dinner when he saw Sophie Lyons, and at the same time he saw Baker, who told him that Phil. Yan Dyke was dead; but Phil. Yan Dyke was not dead until, after 3 o’clock. What are you going to do with that ? The keeper out there at whose place Yan Dyke and Baker stopped, says they were there at 3 o’clock,— Phil. Yan Dyke was not killed until after that, — he stayed there some time; went on up the road two miles farther, and the man into whose house Yan Dyke was carried, came down there and at 4 o’clock told the keeper of the accident. Phil. Yan Dyke was not killed until after 3 o’clock, and there is no contradiction of that. But Tom Crissup, the fellow who takes fur cloaks from Bob. McKinney and lets money on them, * * * is brought here at this late day upon this second trial for the first time, and swears that on his way down from dinner on the 6th day of October, he met a man who told him Yan Dyke was killed. And Phil, did not die until 3 or 4 o’clock. That is Crissup. Do I state his testimony correctly ? Now take Baker, who told this. Gentlemen, there is this peculiarity about a man when his testimony is not true. You go-to work and
    
      COOK UP AW ALIBI,
    get two or three fellows together and buzz them, and say this thing was so and so. They say, “Yes;” but the first they know they get lost and taken back. Somebody comes here and swears to what is not true; swears, for instance, he saw Robison, the County Clerk in his office on his way down from the court room, and had a conversation with him. Presently I ask him which way he went down stairs. If his testimony be true, his answers will all accord. There is no doubt about that. But if he is swearing to what is not true, the first thing you know, he will swear he went down stairs the other, way, which does not lead through the clerk’s office. That is Baker. Baker said, when asked if he had been drinking, at first, “No.” After-wards he admitted that he drank at two places out on the road to Hamtramck with Phil. But we bring a gentleman who keeps a saloon in Detroit, and he swears that just before they started on that drive out to Hamtramck, this identical Baker, who did not drink but twice that day, drank three times at his place. On the way to Hamtramck an accident happened, which, counsel says, even now clouds Baker’s life. Why does it ? Was he so drunk that he caused it % If that is not it, what is it ? If it was not his fault, Avhy should it cloud his life any more than Atkinson’s % It appears he got fiA’e drinks ; we don’t know how many more. When a man gets five drinks he does not know anything about how many he gets afterwards. The accident happened; hands were called from the field ; they put Yan Dyke on a cushion and carried him in. Baker stayed a while at the house, and, getting into the buggy, came doAvn town, knowing that Phil. Van Dyke was dead or dying; knowing that the man whose death clouded his life was dying, and he must get a physician, and it required haste. If, at this instant, some person should fall fainting at my feet, and I should rush for the doctor, I would not know who was in the way. Baker’s story is that he came rushing down town to get doctor Richards, and first went to Mrs. Van Dyke’s on Jefferson avenue.
    The Jewish synagogue stands at the southeast corner of Antoine and Congress streets. Antoine street runs north and south; Congress runs east and west. The Jewish synagogue stands on the southeast, corner of those two streets; Jeffersop' avenue runs east and west parallel with Congress, only it is two blocks south. Mrs. Van Dyke lives on the south side of Jefferson avenue, half a block west of Antoine street; Dr. Richards’ house is three doors west of Antoine street on the north side of Congress street; Mrs. Van Dyke lives on Jefferson avenue in the middle of this block, west of Antoine street, on the south side of the street where Baker went to inform her of the accident, he ran across the street to tell Van Dyke’s brother George, which carried him on the north side of Jefferson avenue. He is now half a block west of Antoine. In going from there to Antoine he goes right straight east along the north side of Jefferson avenue. That naturally carried him to the west side of Antoine street; that would be the first sidewalk he struck. He passes right up Antoine street until he comes to the corner of Congress, and goes diagonally across the road to' Dr. Richards, when, rushing over that route as he did, he saw Bob. McKinney and Sophie Lyons on the corner, by the Jewish synagogue on the east side of the street, and went as close to them as that chair, where the reporter sits, is to that desk; say-three feet. See how they fix it. He had to go by Bob. and Sophie to make it hitch with Crissup. So now they will have this man, when rushing madly for the doctor, run way across the corner to the Jewish synagogue. What for ? Would you have done that under the circumstances? If Baker had seen Sophie Lyons that day he would not tell any such absurd story as that,because truth is never absurd and never can be; it is always reasonable and consistent; but the false is not, it is inconsistent. The man who swTore he had not had a drop, but whom we prove had had five drinks; the man rushing madly for the doctor for Phil. Yan Dyke, who swears he did not see another man, -woman or child all the way from Hamtramck until he saw Phil’s brother near Mrs. Yan Dyke’s; this man, when he came where Bob. and Sophie were, whom he did not knowr intimately, picks them out and identifies them only in all that trip of six miles. Is there a man on this jury who will swallow^ that ?
    We come now to the two young men out of Mr. Atkinson’s office. With a great deal of impressiveness and gusto, -while making his argument, counsel got so close to Mr. Babbitt, my associate, that I thought he was going to hit him, and wanted to know if Mr. Babbitt meant to intimate that lie would bring the boys out of his office to swear to what is not true. I don’t know that there is any particular
    HALO OH GLORY
    surrounding a boy that comes out of Atkinson’s office. As I understand the .case, he has to take the same treatment with anybody else, and is neither any better nor any worse, and his testimony is to be subjected to the same criticism as anybody’s, and I pronounce this, criticism here. When Col. Atkinson was to defend Sophie Lyons and to attempt to establish an alibi, and had two clerks who saw Sophie Lyons in Detroit that, day, and failed to bring them on the first trial, the presumption is that their testimony is not true. It is too late to come here with such a narrative. Here is Doss, who is not a justice of the peace, but is going to be, and a man who is a justice in Detroit is a bright man. They have some bright men in Detroit — justices—they are a
    KEMAKKABLE SPECIES,
    remarkable men, and it does not make any1 difference how absurd a story they swear to, we have to inhale it. Ross went to dinner at noon, and on the way from dinner to the office, where he arrived at 2 o’clock, he heard of the death of Phil. Yan Dyke,, who did not die until between 3 and 4 four o’clock. And he swears that when Sophie came into the office he was reading an account of Phil. Yan Dyke’s death in the Evening News. Ross heard of Yan Dyke’s death on the way to the office from dinner, at 2 o’clock; he had an edition of the News; he did not say that after the four o’clock edition was out he went and got one; he does not say anybody brought him one; but he does swear that after getting there at 2 o’clock he was reading it when Sophie Lyons came into the office and was there alone. Pour o’clock was the first edition that could contain an account of that death. Jones comes onto the stand from Atkinson’s office. He swears he knows it was the 6th, because he went to jail twice that day — in the forenoon and in the afternoon — to see some man, and was on his way back from the jail in the afternoon when he saw Sophie Lyons at the foot of the stairs; and pretty soon he swears he don’t know whether he went to the jail in the afternoon or not. He swears he knows he saw her because he came from the jail in the afternoon and the forenoon, and in the afternoon he saw her coming down from the justice’s office; and in a minute he swears he don’t know whether he went to the jail that day, but he saw her, and he swears, “I have a dim recollection that Sophie came into the office that afternoon.” Why is it dim ? If this man Jones is competent to swear as a matter of fact that he saw Sophie Lyons on the street that afternoon, why cannot he swear as a matter of fact whether he saw her in the office that afternoon ? If his recollection is dim as to whether she was in Atkinson’s office that afternoon, his recollection, is equally dim as to whether he saw her at all. Why 'is it dim one minute and so dear another? He says that he came back from jail and saw Sophie Lyons, and went into the office, and Ross was sitting in the adjoining room. Ross swears that before 4 o’clock Sophie came in and he talked with her, and Jones did not know anything about it. Gentlemen, we have the alibi all boiled down. What do you think of it ? All the testimony, brought here that was ever produced before is the testimony of Bradford and that of Stadler. Gilman is new, Jackson is new and Ross is new and so is Jones, and one is just as good as another. But S,tadler saw her on the first day of the Norris murder trial, which was the 5th of October. Gilman saw her the day he and Paddy Ryan were in the chief’s office, which was the 5th. Bradford saw her at noon when she and Bob. were on the steps of the city hall, and that was the 5th of - October when they were there and were seen there. And on top of this is one thing that cannot be met. At four o’clock of the afternoon of the 5th of October three officers were put to shadow Sophie Lyon’s house and see if she came out of that house, and they remained there until noon of the 6th. On the 6th the chief of police from Cleveland was in Detroit, and a warrant was issued for her arrest.
    THE WHOLE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS HUNTING EOR HER,
    yet she was walking the streets ; was on the steps of the city hall, and in front of Mechanics’ block, and the whole police department could not find her. Do you believe it ? Do you believe it \ I want you to think that over, gentlemen. The watch was started on the 5th of October at four o’clock in the afternoon, three detectives were watching her house until noon of the 6th, the whole detective force were on inquiry; is it probable that she would have stood right on the steps of the city hall, right in front of Mechanics’ block, right in the heart of the city, from 10 o’clock in the morning until 5 in the afternoon, and never an officer find her ? Gentlemen, that disposes of the alibi.
    There are one or two other things that I wish to refer to briefly. A statement has been made here that there is something in my own official conduct which is. designed to frighten the jury. Gentlemen, I want it understood that I have never said, and I do not to-day,, that there is upon this jury a man who would be so dishonest that he will not go into the jury room after hearing the argument in this case and the charge of the court, and render a verdict in accordance with the evidence, under that instruction. I do believe, gentlemen, and I have the right to state it, that an imprudent statement of opinion was made by a juror in this case. I regret it, and believe it was ill-advised, but, gentlemen, I know that from the other jurors there has not a whisper or intimation of the sort escaped, in any way, shape or manner. I believe this jury to be an honest one. There is in me no disposition or desire, even if I had the power- — which I have not — to influence the verdict of this jury by anything else than the evidence that shall appear in this case. Gentlemen, I own no man upon that jury, and I have faith enough in you, and in human nature to believe that no other man can own a fellow citizen in the jury box. I do not believe it. If I felt otherwise, than that you, gentlemen, would take this case and go into the jury room and render a verdict in accordance with the evidence and the law, I would not have the least faith to make an argument before you to-day. I would not have done it. It would be vain and useless for me to speak to you if I felt the case was prejudged, and though one gentleman shall have been premature and unwise in making some remarks, yet, gentlemen, in calling the attention of the court to that fact, I have merely done what my oath of office requires me to do.
    It has been said here by counsel, I know not for what purpose, that in some way he has received assistance and words of hope and encouragement from members of this bar. Gentlemen, I, in behalf of the Washtenaw county bar, fling back the statement as untrue, as necessarily untrue. The gentlemen of the Washtenaw county bar are honest men, they are honorable, they are lawyers; they are men who are incapable of permitting themselves to form an opinion about the truth and right of any case until, not -only the evidence shall have been completed, but the arguments of counsel been heard. Because, gentlemen, I tell you that no man cart hear the testimony in a case from one end to the other and be qualified to pass a verdict upon that testimony until he shall have heard an argument made upon that evidence.
    You may sit there, gentlemen, with the utmost intelligence and shrewdness, and yet points will occur in the testimony, points of vital importance bearing directly upon the most essential parts of the case, which necessarily escape your attention until they are pointed out to you by counsel who are trained to do that, and who will gather the facts together and show you how they bear one upon another; then, gentlemen, if counsel, in making his argument, shall state the testimony to you truly, if he shall hring these facts together, then, and then only, are you qualified to render a verdict. So I say, in behalf of the Washtenaw county bar, there is not a man who will come to a conclusion in this case until he shall have heard all the testimony and all the argument of counsel. There may be men in this county, who irrespective of common honesty and justice, will, on general principles, give their comfort and help to all who are charged with crime; as for those men my brother is welcome to their sympathy, I never ask it and never will take it.
    Gentlemen, a statement is made here by counsel. I cannot imagine it to be done for any other purpose than what I deem to be an improper one, referring to the other trial and the decision of the law upon the record, very manifestly giving the impression that the supreme court has decided that Sophie Lyons did not steal this watch and chain. I do not think there is a man upon this jury who is such an ignoramus as to think that the decision of the supreme court has anything whatever to do with the guilt or innocence of the defendant. That, gentlemen, is always decided by the jury. The only men who have ever passed upon that is the jury in the other case, as it will be by you in this case. That is all. The supreme court never had and never could have any more to do with the guilt or innocence of Sophie Lyons than his Honor who sits upon the bench there. It has no possible control of the matter. The rulings of law made in this court are taken down, and these go to the supreme court, and upon these it passes. There is nothing presented as to the weight of the testimony, or question of fact.
    I have pointed out to you as far as it seems to me necessary the material points in this case, as far as I am concerned; when my voice shall have ceased, my duty will have been done in this case. In determining what my own course is or ought to be in this or other criminal cases I shall be, as I know, gentlemen, you will be, governed only by considerations of what is right. It is true that no innocent person should be convicted, but it is equally true that we should let no guilty one escape. When a guilty person escapes, thieves and crooks and scoundrels all over the land are filled with joy and gather comfort, hoping that they may meet the same fortune. When the guilty are convicted, the rascals mourn and honest men properly rejoice. I have said, gentlemen, I do not stand here for the purpose of asking you to do anything that your own true judgment and conscience shall not direct, but I do ask you, because you are men in whom I have confidence, to do right though the heavens fall. There is no fear or intimidation that can reach you. I have endeavored to perform my duty fully, fairly- and fearlessly. I ask the same of you, no more, no less. Let no act of yours shake from the foundation of society a single rock which holds the fabric firm that protects us all. I have not at any point through this case asked any verdict at' your hands because of any claim that the defendant is a bad woman. Nothing of the sort, gentlemen, but you must consider something here. You have heard the plea that has been made that you should not convict some one upon general principles. Beware ! Take care that that cry does not cause you, in your -fear of convicting upon general principles, to repel -evidence that is legitimate to secure a conviction. For fear of such a conclusion, be fearless, gentlemen, as I know you will be honest! Be true to yourselves and the oaths you have taken as jurors, and I have no fear but, whatever your verdict may be, it will be a true and an honest one. Consult your own consciences and your own good sense, and render a verdict which shall not be a shame to yourselves or the people among whom you live.
    
      Chas-. R. Whitman, Prosecuting Attorney, and J. Willard Babbitt for the People.
    
      John F. Lawrence, John G. Uaiuley and John Atkinson for Defendant.
     