Democratic Sentinel, Volume 11, Number 41, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 November 1887 — ‘A RIGHTEOUS VERDICT,' [ARTICLE]

‘A RIGHTEOUS VERDICT,'

Is what the Crawfordsville, Ind., Argus-News pronounces the verdict handed in by the gentlemen composing the jury m the cause of the State vs Mrs. Rutherford.— lor intelligence and honesty of purpose no better body of men could have been selected. This conceded and declared by counsel for the State and for the defense. Wherein, then, lies the cause for dissatisfaction? To the law-abiding there can be no cause for complaint The jury simply established the precedent in Jasper county that man’s home is as sacred as his life; that he may re_ sist the assaults of th • vicious to the very death, and that the con~ sti-ution and laws of his country will not punish him in the exercise of that right. How stands the case? It was clearlv proven that Steele trespassed upon the premises of a poor, weak, industrious woman; he refused to leave, and persisted in his efforts to secure a gratification which he had no grounds to expect; he predicated his claim up s RUMOR, scattered abroad by the “thit say so’s” with whom every eommunity has its share. In his lack of the principles of tree manhood be struck her, leaving the mark of his stroke on her arm; h? breathed into her ear profane and obscene declarations which, with indignant energy she proneunced a “lie,” pushed him from her door, and fired the fatal shot. A cheap, insignificant weapon did the work. Judge Hammond, in his argument for the defense, most beautifully pictured the part played by an overruling Providence in such affairs. She was defending her home, defending her person against the effect of rumor.— The jury, composed of intelligent and independent citizens, after a patient hearing of the evidence, unbiased and unprejudiced by influence from any quarter said she did right! But those who express dissatisfaction, say she was “bad” Did they prove it? An agreement was entered into that five witnesses should be selected by the State and five by the defense, to determ ine that point. Messrs. J. W. Duvall, John Vanatta, Chas. B. Stewart, and Earl Reynolds for t e State, pronounced “bad”—based their judgement on ‘hearsay,’ not acceptable evidence in cour* —Mr. Allen Catt, their fifth witness knew nothing against def’t. The State should have substituted Bro. Marshall for Mr. Catt, as he has certainly been most emphatic and frequent in h.s declarations. We will add that these witnesses had not at any time lived in immediate neighborhood of defendant. Those selected by defense, were Mr. and Mrs. George Dexter, Mrs. Shead, Mr. and Mrs Jas. W. McEwen, neighbors of def’t for from one to two years. Unhesitatingly p.orounced her reputation “good.’ Based their judgement as neighbors from deft’s general conduct—took no stock in rumors. Was the “bad”reputation sustained? Who can say it was? The failure to establish that was followed by th® failure to sustain the ‘rumor’ of defendant having Jived in Monon the ‘rumor’ from which sprang al her annoyances here. But we have neither space nor time to continue the subject further to-day. anon. (