Indianapolis Times, Volume 37, Number 168, Indianapolis, Marion County, 14 November 1925 — Page 2

2

KANE DELIVERS FINAL ARGUMENT FOR STATE

Attorney Gives Eloquent Appeal for Conviction on Murder Charge. (Continued From Page 1) such failure to render her such medical assistance, or if the evidence in this case shows beyond a reasonable doubt that her life was shortened by the failure on the part of these defendants or any of them so to act, then I instruct you that they are guilty of manslaughter, if you find said ommission to act was mere negligence; but if you find that such ommission or failure to act was done wilfully, with a reckless disregard of the consequences, then I instruct you they would be guilty of murder.” Klinck’s Part Judge Sparks also instructed the jury that if they found Klinck to have been a mere tool of the others and that he had no knowledge of their plot, if any, he should be found not guilty. However, if they thought that Klinck had knowledge of a preconceived plan and was a party to the crime, or if he himself assumed control of Madge and failed to give her whatever assistance was necessary that he would be guilty equally with the others. Attorney Kane spoke for more than two hours. The jurymen gave him strict attention. Every seat in the courtroom was taken as Kane began his talk. "Gentlemen, we’ll all be glad when this trial is over. We then can go our several ways and follow our chosen tasks,” Kane began. "I’m not going to try to throw a smoke screen over the facts in this case. I'm going to try to show them in their nakedness for the purpose of dispelling the screen that others have thrown. “Something has been said by defense counsel about the gigantic conspiracy that has been framed to destroy their precious client. Something has been said about the gold that jingles in our pockets. As far as I am concerned, I am here without the assurance of one penny of compensation for my efforts, without looking to one person for a single dollar. From the day I was asked to assist in this case I have done everything in my power to bring about the conviction of the men who have committed the most heinous crime that has ever plagued the fair State of Indiana,” Kane cried. "This Is the case of the States of Indiana versus D. C. Stephenson and others, and the State demands their punishment for offending not only the laws of their State, but of their Creator.” Following in the footsteps of other attorneys in the case, regardless of whichever side they may be on, Kane took a few minutes to hurl the arrows of vitriol toward the opposition. Floyd Christian, a defense attorney, was Kane’s target. *H pity Floyd Christian—his .creator gave him the bearing of "a man, but none of the attributes. His whole argument was a sham, a fraud, a smoke-screen over the real facts of this case. He didn't mention facts; he dodged them.” Kane attacked argument of Eph Inman, general of the defense staff, that Madge Oberholtzer was the boon companion of Stephenson months before the Governor’s ball at the Indianapolis Athletic Club, Jan. 12, 1925. Kane pointed to the testimony of Maxine Elliott, Stephenson’s former stenographer and one of his witnesses, that the first time she ever saw Madge in Stephenson’s office was early in January. Kune made capital of the fact that all the defense's other star witnesses had said they saw her in Stephenson's office many times in the latter months of 1924. "Maxine Elliott was the only one of those defense witnesses with any character or standing,” Kane declared. State’s Theory "The theory of the law maintained by the State in this case has been the law of England, more than 500 years, and it has been the law of this country ever since the English common law was brought to this country,” Kane declared. With his voice crescendo, Kane shouted, “I don’t care anything about germs. When these defendants unlawfully abducted) Madge Oberholtzer, attacked her, and dragged her to Hammond they inade themselves criminals, and by that very act drove that pure girl, honored and respected in her community, loved by all—drove her to the position, where she had lost all, where she was bereft of all she cherished, forced her to take that potion of death, and D. O. Stephenson and ids cohort became murderers just the same af if they had plunged a dagger into her throbbing heart. "Every case cited to you by the defense In this argument was one where the woman went willingly. If that were true in this case I wouldn’t be taking your time. I'd be back at my office trying to draw together some of* the loose ends of my business, making some money for my own family.” Quiet Logic Although Kane’s argument was not the pyrotechnical display of

ECZEMA m CAN BE HEALED Free Proof To You mfm All I want is your name and address so I can send you a free trial treatment. I wantyou just to try this treatment—that’s all—Just C. HUTZELL Jm it. That’s my only argument. DUJaaisT I’ve been in the Retail Drug Business for 20 years. I served four years as a member of the Indiana State Board of Pharmacy and five years as President of the Retail Druggists’ Association. Nearly everyone in Fort Wayne knows me and knows about mv successful treatment. Over Thirty-Five Thousand Men and Women outside of Fort Wayne, have, according to their own statements, been healed by this treatment since I first made this offer public. If you have Eczema, Itch, Salt Rheum, Tetter— never mind how had my treat*' ■sent has healed the worst cases I ever saw— give me a chance to prove my claim. Send meyour name and address on the coupon below and get the trial treatment I want to send you FREE. The wonders accomplished in your own case will be proof. CUT AND MAIL TODAY J. C. HUTZELL, Druggist, No. 5046 West Main St., Fort Wajmo, Ind. Please send without cost or obligation to me your Free Proof Treatment Name Aw Post Office Slot. 1 fitw* and Nn. I

some others Who had preceded him, his pleading was based on plain logic, and was having a tremendous effect on the jury. "I’ll say to you frankly, If she went there willingly, there’s no case. It’s written here on the undeniable book of evidence that Madge Oberholtzer was the unwill ing companion of this desperate triumvirate. “What’s the story, gentlemen? Why, it’s the most scurrilous in the history of the ages. Trapped in a garage loft; two blocks from her home —dying!” "Don’t let the defense befuddle you about this story. Madge Oberholtzer told you a coherent story. She was drugged—of course she didn’t know the exact route she took through the Union Station. The Pullman conductor Identified Gentry and Stephenson. So (Jid the porter. They registered. We didn’t have to call a hand-writing expert as Mr. Inman suggested, to identify the writer of ‘W. B. Morgan and wife.’ We had the man who held the pen, and there he is,” Kane cried out, wiggling his finger at Stephenson. Raps Inman Kane observed the solemn complacent look on Inman’s face as he gazed over toward the defense table and cpuld not refrain from taking a jab at the portly barrister. “And Eph Inman, sullen as a boiled owl, looked like an affidavit as he stood before you. “That Isn’t all; they go to the bedroom. The bell boy picked him out. Why, Stephenson looked like he was taking a dose of ipecac when that coon laid his hand on his shoulder. "Shorty DeFrieze —where is he? He’s your man, not ours—where is he?” Kane next turned to the historic night when Madge was brought back to Indianapolis and railed at the defendants for doing nothing to allay her pain. “Now, let’s take another step in the history of this outrage, ” said Kane, lowering his voice to a conversational tone. He had been yelling at the top of his voice in the faces of the jurors. Praises Smith “These gentlemen don’t like Asa Smith. How happy they would be if they had his character. He was born in Hamilton County. His mother sleeps in a church yard in Tomlinson neighborhood. He’s one of the nation’s heroes. He came back from the battle of the Argonne, terribly wounded. He’s no Stephenson, he’s no Klinck, he’s no Gentry.” Kane said that Smith, when he learned that Madge would die, wrote the declaration and that he deserved credit for so doing. “When the dread news came from the sick room, this poor girl couldn’t recover, and tliat any evidence would have to boas a dying declaration, Smith wrote it down, God bless him. He brought the evidence in the court which clinches this case, and will send those men to the place where they belong. That’s why they don’t like Asa Smith. "These men raped Madge Oberholtzer, attacked her, kidnaped her, but the State can’t use the dying declaration in those cases, under the law. It can only be used in homicide cases, yet these hired and paid criminal lawyers who wouldn’t be here unless for the filthy dollars of the men who manipulated the Legislature, had the effrontery to attack Smith.” Kane then described Madge’s deathbed scene. Ho walked about in front of the jury holding his arms aloft ft?,* at least live minutes. “No, they sped on and on, througli the night, and instead of taking this poor girl to a doctor, they locked her lip in a garage, while her own mother, stood outside. "Oh, My God! "When he got het this bottle of milk, that was altruistic of him, wasn’t it? That measely little bottle of milk. Wanted to marry her—coward. Wore No Hat "There’s some things you and I know. If Madge Oberholtzer had gone willingly with Stephenson that nijrht, she would have done it by pre-arrangement—she would have worn a hat. "On that fateful Sunday, Madge was out with her friend. She was a happy joyous girl, and little dreamed of the fate that awaited her. While she was out, that telephone rang and rang for Madge. When Madge came home he told her he was making a trip, and had something important to discuss with her, something that concerned her vital•ly. If she was going to make a trip with him, wouldn’t she have made some preparations at least. Wouldn’t she have worn a hat? If I understand women, they usually take some cosmetics. Some lingerie and other things. Especially when they start on a 250-mile Pullman ride.” Kane’s argument seemed to be going over with a bang, especially with the women, who comprised more than half the audience. Raps Newspaper Men "Do you think she would have had a big, pug-nosed Gentry in the same I compartment, if she had been con-

scious of what was happening. If she was a willing companion, why did they bring her home looking like she’d been In a fight?” Kane throughout the trial has been at loggerheads with newspaper men on the case. Seeing a chance to give vent to his feelings along this line, Kane declared. "Newspaper men had no business at the autopsy, gazing on the nude form of this poor girl. Humiliation even in death!” Kane seized a copy of the testimony of Miss Beatrice Spratley, Madge’s nurse, and read: “Her left cheek was bruised, her left breast was bruised, the lower half of her abdomen—the inside of her thighs, and her legs, down to her ankels—all were bruised.” “A willing companion, eh? Oh, Gentlemen, she wasn’t hurt. She just went along with this Stephenson, just because she loved him,” Kane hissed. Glaring at Inman, Kane said, ‘‘And that able, touted, newspaperboomed criminal attorney, Inman—if he bad half as much sense as any one of you jurymen, he wouldn’t have had the nerve to make such flimsy arguments. “I want to demonstrate to Klinck, to Gentry, to Inman, to Stephenson, and to Christian, if it ran be done, that in Indiana the law is supreme. Put them away so others will be safe,” Kane demanded. Kane launched a flrece attack against the four Marion County deputy sheriffs, who testified regarding Klinck’s alibi. Perjury Charged “If the prosecutor of Hamilton County has the nerve, and I think he has, and the judge does his duty, the grand jury will be called to prosecute Red Koffel add those other deputy sheriffs and all others who had a hand in it, for perjury. Men who should be in jail instead of locking others in jail. Are you going to believe their word against that of the good, motherly Mrs. Schultz, who saw KJinck with her very eyes?” • In another outburst Kane assailed Ralph Rigdon of Fountaintown, one of Stephenson’s star witnesses. “Rigdon, the loafing, lying bum, who licked the feet of Stephenson for the crumbs he could get.” Kane could not free from his mind the sting of the defense's accusation that blood money jingled in the pockets of the prosecution. “Our reward is in the consciousness of having performed a duty.” Turning suddenly on Inman, Kane shouted: “Can you say that Mr. Inman?” Inman features remained unchanged. “These fellows are guilty of murder, staphlococcl, or no staphlococci,” Kane continued. “Tliat wound was placed on that girl’s body by the fangs of tills serpent. The infection which followed caused her death. “The defense’s medical witnesses didn’t get a chance to answer the true facts of this case. They answered hypothetical questions that were lies from beginning to end. His Conclusion “Has Indiana no law that will protect her daughters from conduct of this kind?’ Kane said as he began his conclusion. “You’re going to write in your verdict whether your daughter, my daughter, or other reputable citizens’ daughters are to be protected from vandalism. The eyes not only o' Indiana, but "of the whole country, are on you. Gentlemen, I stand on hallowed grou id as I stand before you. It Is from the heart. Gentlemen, it wasn’t suicide, it was murder. They drove her to her death —it was murder.” Before Kane had reached his seat Jdge Sparks was reading his instructions to the jury. A child about 4 years old became confused and was wandering about in the courtroom near the defendants’ table. He crawled under the table and Stephenson picked up the youngster and handed it over to its mother. The jurymen obserbed it. Judge Sparks reviewed the indictment against the defendants, citing the entire text. “To this indictment, the defendants have separately interposed a plea of not guilty and this forms the issue you are to try,” Judge Sparks said. "You will have the Indictment with you in the jury room to read for yourselves, but I further instruct you that the fact that the Marion County grand jury has returned this indictment raises no presumption of the defendants’ guilt, or either of them. It is not considered as evidence.”

Penalties Cited Penalties were cited. "If you think the evidence warrants, you may find the defendants guilty of murder either in first or second degree, or of manslaughter, or you may find them, or either of them, not guilty. "The death penalty or life Imprisonment,” the judge said, "may be given to whoever purposely and with premeditated malice or in the perpretration or attempt to perpretrate, a rape, arson, robbery or burglary or by administering poison or causing the same to be administered, kills any human bein^. "Where there is no-premeditation, but the killing is done purposely and maliciously the penalty of second degree murder may be inflicted —life imprisonment, the judge’s instructions read. Where* there is no malice, express or Implied and the act is one of sudden heat or involuntary, but is in the commission of some unlawful act, the penalty of manslaughter—or two to twenty-one years in prison, may be Inflicted, he said. Judge Sparks then defined the crime of rape; assault and battery with intent to commit a felony for which the penalty is two to fourteen years. Presumed Innocent “The presumption of innocence remains with the defendants throughout the trial and they are entitled to its benefits unless the evidence convinces you beyond a

IlLb, lxM>xAxNAruL.ltS TlMiiilS

reasonable doubt of their guilt,” the judge -said. “But in clothing those charged with crime with the presumption of innocence, the law does not contemplate that the guilty shall be shielded from merited punishment. Its object is to protect the innocent as far as human agencies can, from the effects of unjust verdicts. “If any one of the material allegations has not been so proved, it would be your duty to acquit. If all the material allegations of the indictment have been proved, it is your duty to convict. "Tq prove a proposition beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence must be such that it would convince a prudent man of the truth of it to such a degree of certainty that he would feel safe to act upon such conviction without hestitation, in matters of the highest Importance to his own dearest personal interests, under circumstances where there was no compulsion resting upon him at all. Each Acts for Self “Each juror acts for himself In coming to a conclusion and acts on his own convictions. If any juror after consulting and deliberating with his fellows, should not be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendants’ guilt, it would be his duty to refuse to vote for a conviction. And if on the other hand, any juror convinced of the defendant’s guilt, it would be his duty to refrain from voting for an acquittal. But it Is the duty of each juror to consult and deliberate with his fellow jurors. “The rule of the law touching reasonable doubt Is a practical rule intended to guide jurors engaged in the serious and important duty of administering justice. There Is nothing in it that is mysterious or fanciful. It does not furnish a shield for those actually guilty whereby to escape merited punishment. It does not contemplate absolute or mathematical certainty. Despite every precaution that may be taken to prevent it, there may be, in all matters depending on human testimony for proof, a mere possibility of error. “The third count of the Indictment charges the defendants with having killed and murdered Madge Oberholtzer in an attempt to commit rape on her. You would not be warranted in finding the defendants, or either of them guilty under said third count unless the evidence has established beyond all reasonable doubt that the death of said Madge Oberholtzer was mediate or immediate result of such alleged attempt to commit a rape on her if any. And If you should -have a reasonable doubt that her death was mediate or immediate result of such alleged attempt to commit a rape upon her, you could not convict said defendants or either of them on said third count.” * • • “The statute defining murder In the first degree Includes cases where the homicide results from the perpetration or the attempt to perpetrate certain felonies named, viz: rape, arson, robbery and burglary. The statutory provision as to the first degree Is to make criminal in that degree the murder resulting from committing or attempting to commit the particular felonies specified. No Intent to kill and no delieration and premeditation of murder are necessary in such cases as the implied malice involved in the felonious intent is sufficient.” • * * “To authorize the conviction of the defendants for murder in the second degree, the Utate must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt all the facts necessary to be proven to entitle It to a conviction for murder in the first degree, excepting that the alleged killing of the deceased was premeditated; premeditation being the only distinction between murder in the first and second degree.’ “To authorize the conviction of tKe defendants of manslaughter the evidence must have sliown beyond a reasonable doubt that at the place mentioned in the indictment the defendants killed the said deceased as alleged in the indictment without malice, express or implied, either voluntarily, upon a sudden heat, or involuntarily but in the commission of some unlawful act.” ♦ * * “If there Is in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt ns to which of the different degrees of felonious homicide embodied in the indictment, the defendants or either of them are, or, is guilty, if either, he or they, as the case may be, must be convicted of the lowest degree only.” • * • “In order to entitle the State to a conviction of the defendants for murder in the first degree, it must have been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at the place mentioned In the Indictment at some time before the finding of the indictment, the defendants* did unlawfully and purposely kill, or cause to be killed, the deceased jn the manner alleged in at least one count of the indictment, and that such killing of the deceased by the defendants, if it was so done by them, was premeditated and malicious, and in pursuance of a purpose, previously formed In the mind of the defendants, and deliberately considered and resolved upon,” •• • • “If you find from all the evidence in this cause that such evidence falls to show any motive on the part of the defendants, or either of them, to commit the crime charged against them, the same is a circumstance in favor of the defendants to be given such weight when taken together with all the other evidence in the cause, as you deem it entitled to. But I further instruct, you that express proof of motive is not essential to the conviction of one charged with murder. Motive may be Inferred from the commission of the crime, If you find that such crime was committed.” • • • "Liability of conspirators: When two or more parties conspire or combine together to commit any unlawful act, each is criminally responsible for the acts of his associates or confederates committed In furtherance or in prosecution of the common, design for which they combine. “If the unlawful act agreed to be done is dangerous or homicidal in character ajnd if its accomplishment

will necessarily or probably require the use of force and violence, which may result In the taking of life unlawfully, every part to such agreement will be held criminally liable for whatever his co-conspirators may do In furtherance of the common design. If the offense contemplated is a felony, and death ensues as a result, of some act alone or move of said conspirators, done In furtherance of said design, all of said conspirators will be guilty of murder. If in such case, the offense contemplated is a misdemeanor, the guilt will be of the grade of manslaughter. "The act which caused the death, however must be shown to have been done for the furtherance or in the prosecution of the common object of design for which they combined together. There can be no criminal responsibility on the part of a co-consplrator for a death resulting from something not fairly within the common enterprise. The homicidal act must be the ordinary and probably effect of the wrong agreed upon. But the fact that the killing was not within the actual contemplation of the parties, does not relieve them of responsibility. In such cases it is always a question of fact, pending in all the surrounding circumstances. Whether the 'homicidal act was within the scope of the original unlawful project, and this question In such cases Is peculiarly within the province of the jury to determine.” • * • "The persons is not to be held criminally responsible for a homicide unless his acts can be said to be the cause of death; but I instruct you that a person may, under some circumstances, be guilty of the crime of murder, as an indirect result of his unlawful acts, as well as the direct result thereof. Thus, one may, by his own direct, through fear of another or others, cause his own death, under such circumstances as will constitute felonious homicide on the part of such other person or persons who cause such fear. In such cases it must appear, however, that the act of the deceased which destroyed his or her life while under the influence of fear was: "First, such a step as a reasonable man or woman might take. “Second, that the apprehension was of immediate violence or injury. "Third, that the apprehension of violence must have bene well grounded. "Fourth, the act of the deceased must have been the natural and probable consequence of the unlawful conduct of such other person or persons.” "In determining the question whether or not the deceased was a willing or unwilling participant on the trip in question, it is proper for you to consider all the facts and circumstances surrounding such trip. Her previous acquaintance, if any, with the defendants, the different places where she was, and whether they were public places or not; the fact, if it be a fact, of whether she came in contact with persons other than the accused; and whether or not under such circumstances, she had the opportunity to make an outcry, or attract attention of persons other than the defendants; or to communicate with officers of the law; or to go and come as she pleased; or to remove herself from the control of the defendants; and it is also proper in this connection to consider her physical and mental condition at those times, and whether or not she realized such opportunities if they existed, and all other facts and circumstances as shown by the evidence which in your judgment will throw light on this question." • • * Explains Homicide "One who inflicts an injury on another is deemed by the law to be guilty of homicide, If the injury contributes mediately or Immediately to the death. The fact that other causes contributing to the death does not relieve the actor from responsibility. While it Is true that a person cannot be killed twice, yet it 13 equally true that two persons can contribute to cause the death of another in which case each will be responsible for such death.” • * • "The law declares that one who Inflicts an Injury on another and thereby accelerates his death, shall be held criminally responsible therefore. Although the death would not have resulted from the Injury, but the diseased and wounded condition of the person Injured, already existing at the time of such act of celeration.”Legal Duty “One of the theories of the Indictment, is that Madge Oberholtzer met her death as a result of the failure of the defendants to perform a legal duty which it is alleged said defendants owed to her. There is a difference between moral obligations and legal duties. All legal duties are moral obligation, but all moral obligations are not legal duties. The violation of a moral obligation alone can never form the basis of felonious homicide unless such moral obligation also constitutes a legal duty. "For Instance, os a human being there rests upon me a moral obligation to render aid to the needy, but if I neglect to do so, and death results therefrom I am not to be held for felonious homicide for the violation of the mere moral obligation. But on the other hand, If I should take possession and custody of a human being through fraud, deceit, force or thrust, and thus deprive such person of his or her liberty, of the right to exercise his or her will power, then a legal duty immediately arises and rests upon me, to protect such persons from danger, and If under such circumstances 1 am guilty of any act of negligence either of omission or commission, with relation to such legal duty, and Injury results to such person, as the natural and probable result of my negligence. I am liable for such injury; and if death results as a reasonable and natural consequence, of my said act of neglience, I am guilty of felonious homicide.” • * • “Unless you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Earl Klinck, aided, abetted, counselled, encouraged, hired, commanded, or otherwise procured or helped to procure said alleged acts to

be committed as alleged In the Indictment, you would not be warranted In convicting him, and unless you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that said Klinck was a party to or participated In a plan of said other two defendants or either of them, to entrap and to make a criminal assault upon the person of Madge Oberholtzer, as alleged in the indictment, with knowledge of the purpose of said plan, he could not be held liable for the acts of said other two defendants, or either of them, outside of his presence, and during said trip to Hammond, if. you find such trip was made; but if you find that he was a party to such a plan with said other defendants, with knowledge of its purpose, ns alleged In the indictment, and assisted in the preliminary arrangements of carry out such plans, he would be liable for the acts of such other defendants, fairly within the common enterprise, and for the furtherance or in the prosecution lof such common objects or designs, and this would be true regardless of whether he was with said parties all the time or not, and although he might not have been a party to such a plan as alleged, and hence not liable for the acts of said other defendants while on such trip, if such trip were made, yet if you are convinced of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that subsequently Madge Oberholtzer was returned to the garage of the defendant Stephenson, in a weakened and helpless condition, In which condition she was placed into the custody and control of said Klinck in said garage, which he assumed and undertook to perform, then I instruct you that at that time, there was a legal duty resting upon him, to us# all reasonable means within his power to care for her, and If he failed to do so, either by an act of commission or an act of omission, by reason of which her life was shortened, he would be guilty of felonious homicide, under the first or fourth count of the Indictment.” • * • Circumstantial Evidence "Evidence may be either direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is of a particular fact or circumstance which forms a subject of judicial Investigation. Circumstantial evidence is evidence of other 'or collateral facts and circumstances from which these pertlcular facts, which forms the subject of judicial Investigation, Is or may be inferred. "To justify a conviction of the defendants in any case, on circumstantial evidence alone, the circumstances disclosed by the evidence must be of such character and strength as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis, except that of such defendant’s guilt. If the circumstances disclosed by the evidence can be explained on arty reasonable theory consistent with such defendant’s innocence he is entitled to an acquittal, but circumstantial evidence alone is enough to support a verdict of guilty of any kind, provided the jury believes, beyond a reasonable doubt, from the evidence given in the case, that the accused Is guilty as charged. The truth must not only coincide with the hypothetis of guilt, but it must be inconsistent with every other rational conclusion. No greater degree of certainty is required where the evidence is circumstantial than where it is direct, for, in either case, the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of such defendants’ guilt as charged.” • • • Dying Declaration "Dying declarations are those made*by a victim of a homicide referring to the material facts which concerned the cause ar and circui'ifistanes of the homicide. The certainty of the declarant’s belief that he or she is in extremis and that In a very short time those immortal and spiritual elements which inhabit the body will *forsake it, to encounter the dread possibilities of the unknown and supernatural world beyond the grave, Is deemed to furnish a sanction equivalent to that of a solemn and positive oath, administered by a court of justice. The credibility and weight are wholly for the jury, and these elements are to be determined by the same rules that are employed In judging the evidence of a living witness in weighing this testimony of Madge Oberholtzer. It is proffer for you to consider the circumstances under which It was made; the purposes for which It was made; her physical and mental condition; whether It was made of her own volition; whether she was in fear of Intending dissolution; the absence of the right of cross-ex-amination; whether or not It has been contradicted in any respect by other evidence which you deemed worthy of credit. Must Fix Punishment "If you are convinced from all the evidence Introduced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants, or either of them, are guilty of murder In the first degree aB charged in either count of the indictment, it will be your duty to fix the punishment for such defendants or defendant so

c —■" — —* OVER 70 YEARS OF SUCCESS OLD TRAILS Automobile Insurance Assn. HOME OFFICE—INDIANAPOLIS PHONE, RILEY 1301 Broader Protection *t^

found guilty, which is either death or imprisonment for life. This is left to your own discretion. “If you are convinced from all the evidence introduced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants, or either ofthem are guilty of murder in the second degree, as charged ineither count of the Indictment It will be your duty to assess the punishment upon such defendants or defendant so found guilty and such punishment is Imprisonment for life. If you are convinced from all the evidence introduced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants, or either of them, are guilty of manslaughter, as charged in either count of the indictment, you should not attempt to fix the punishment therefor, but merely state that such person, or persons are guilty of manslaughter as charged, and leave the assessment ofthe punishment to this court under the law. "If vou find the defendants or either of them not guilty, so say bj your verdict.” Conclusion In conclusion, the Instructions said: "You are the exclusive Judges of the weight of the evidence, and the credibility of the witnesses. It is your duty to consider all the evidence and determine what facts have been proven, or not proven. If you meet with conflicts in the evidence, you should, if you can reasonably and fairly do so, so reconcile them as to believe all the testimony of all the witnesses. If you cannot so reconcile the evidence then you have the right to believe that which you think most worthy of credit, and disregard that which cannot be reasonably and fairly reconciled therewith. “In determining the credibility of any witness and weighing his test!* money, it is proper for you to consider his appearance, conduct and manner of testifying, while on the witness stand; whether his statements are reeasonable or unreasonable, consistent or inconsistent, and whether they are corroborated or contradicted by other evidence which ypu deem worthy of credit; the ex-, tent of his inteelligence, his knowledge and means of knowing of the matters stated; the attention he gave to such matters, and his recollection thereof, whether good or bad; his interest In the result of this cause, if any, and the nature and extent of it; whether or not he has any feeling, bias or prejudice for or against the plaintiff or defendant. And any other fact or circumstance, shown by the evidence, which from your experience and observation, you believe will aid you in arriving at the truth In this cause, may be considered, and give such weight as you think it is justly entitled to. "When you retire to your Jury room to deliberate on your verdict, appoint one of your members as foreman. It will be his duty to sign your verdict, when agreed upon. When your verdict shall have been signed, return It into open court.” MUST LIGHT BUSSES Public service commission today adopted a rule rekuiring all motor bus operators to keep the interior of their busses well lighted at night. The penalty for violation will be revocation of certificate. President Madison of the United States always wore suits made of wool grown In America.

United Labor Bank & Trust Cos. 4% on Savings 2 E. Market St.

Today Is Your Opportunity Tomorrow Never Comet Save Your Money Today With This Strong Company, the Oldest in Indiana 4% Paid on Savings THE INDIANA TRUST c l?!±V Member Indianapolis Clearing House SURPLUS $2,000,000 Open Saturdays 8 to 8

Some beneficiary ml of the Community Fund Yu ill TODAY may be handing out Jl alms to your grandchildren Jm IT COMMUNITY FUND "3i*i se4ttrty6xn{y4 j&b/ *'

SATURDAY, NOV. 14, 1925

HE WANTED A DRINK But Instead Hold-Up Man Took llis Money and Watch. An obliging hold up man lured his victim into a trap Friday night by telling him he could point out a place to get a drink. Ernest Madison, 2136 Northwestern Ave., said he was in a restaurant when he was given such a tip. He and the man walked to Fourteenth St., and the Big Four Railroad where the colored informant struck him on the mouth, knocked him down and took $4.50 and a $32 watch. RUPTURE EXPERTS COMING Demonstrate the Famous Rice Method Free to Callers at Hotel If you are ruptured, your big opportunity has now arrived. If you would like to he free from the Rlaver.v of gouging, pinching, chafing trusses that make life a burden, then HERE! aud NOW is the time to act. Personal representatives, experts 1n rupture enses, trained under the personal direction of W. S. Itice, of Adams, N. Y., the famous discoverer of tho Rice Non-Surgleul Rupture Method, will be at the New Colonial Hotel, Indianapolis, Ind., Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, Nov. 16, 17 and 18. These experts are here to personally demonstrate to all ruptured people what the Rice Rupture Method can accomplish. You have, no doubt, heard and rend much about this famous Method and the relief which thousands have reported from it. Now, you have the chance to find out all about It, to have It demonstrated to you and to see what It can do In YOUR OWN case. Just call at the hotel and those experts will give you tlieir personal attention, best udvice and complete demonstration absolutely without charge. Aro you tired of that, binding, hampering, uncomfortnbio truss? Would you like to be free of it forever? Then investigate this Rice Method and find out the possibilities it holds out. Surely a Method that could cause so many thousands of former rupture sufferers to report healing must be worthy of your full and complete Investigation. The Rice Method is different front anything else. It is modern, up to-tho-nitnute abreast of the latest scientific developments. It is tin; one Method that you aro not asked to take on faith alone —the one.Method that is positively demonstrated to you, right on your own person, without tiny charge whatever. You do not spend a penny unless, after having a full and complete ilemonslration you deelde that this Is tlie Method for you—you alone—are the solo Judge of that. , In justice to yourself com? In and see these experis. Remember, they will lia here only three days, then your opportunity will be gone. Grasp it NOW. It may prove to be the wl> est thing you ever did, and anyway, it costs you nothing to find out. Remember, ceine in the New Colonial Hotel any day from 9 to 12 forenoons, 2 to 5 afternoons, or 7 to 9 In the evening. Tho dates are Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, Nov. 16, 17 and 18. Don’t let this opportunity get away from you. W. 8. RICE, Adams, N. Y. —Advertisement.