‘

i,

SC calliemaenetiagaalel

THE CULLAGHAN MUBDER,

— ——

Intense Interest in the Trial, A Crowded Court Room.

me

Eloquent Speeches of Messrs. F. Peters and Hodgson, Q. 0.

A Short Summary Report,

The court room yesterday afternoon wes densely packed, and intense interest was evi- dent as the Callaghan murder case was re- viewed by the eloquent Counsel on behalf of the prisoner and behalf of the Crown. The speeches of both Messrs. F. Peters and Hodgson were splendid forensic efforts. Each occupied about two hours in the de- livery, and the reports below necessarily

represent but mere skeletons of the ad-

dreases as they were dolivered.

The Foreman of the Jury asked that the last witness, Mr. John Bell, be recalled in order that they might put some questions to him.

Joun Bet (re-called)—Question by the Fore* man of the Jury—-Did you ever make any other vest from that pattern? Ans.— Never.

Question—Have you often made vests from that kind ef cloth !? Ans3,.—Not very often.

Counsel for the defence stated to the Court that as new evidence had been intro- duced he dosired to send for the persons who had charge of Callaghan's clothes since his death,

Mes. H. B. Smiru (re-called)—There were no clothes at Callaghan’s after the murder. I searched the whole place and looked for a black suit, but could not find it. I found a new home- spun pants and an old vest, which I wonld not have put on him if [ could have found anything better. [ helped dress him after he was dead, and made hini a little recognizeable. Isawa number of persons out there; I den’t think | saw you. (Laughter.) There was no other clothes worth anrthing.

To Mr. Hodygson—I did not see a black waist- eoatthere. It was not a double-breasted waist- coat that I puton him. (Black vest shown.) I did not see this vest there. LIswear positively that I did not see it. [f l had seen it I would have put iton himand it would not be here now, unless you had to dig for it.

This closed the evidence, and at five min- utes to three o'clock Mr. Frederick Peters began his address to the Jury.

OUTLINE OF MR, PETERS’ ADDRESS.

May ir PLease Yocr Lorpsare—Gentlemen of the Jury. in a case of the kind we are trying here to-day, it is necessary that we should uader, stand clearly the serious nature of the issue. It was, | dare say, never before, your fortune (or misfortune)—it never before was my misfortune totake part in the trial of a man for his life. There is a distinction between trials for murder and trials for any other class of crime. The issue here is between life and death. This. should be fully understood at the outstart. I know that each of you would give almost anything to be clear of the daty which lies before you; but I feel confident ‘that you will not shirk the issue, grave as Mis; that you will give to the evidence which has been adduced in the case, your most careful consideration, and that if the evidence does not come upto what the law and juslice requires in guch cases, you will not convict the prisoner.

It is necessary, in the first place, to rid your minds from the influence of certain extrinsic circumstances, calculated to prejudice you egaiist the prisoner. You are intelligent men, aud you, no doubt, read the newspapers. I mast bring to your notice the fact that the newspapers have, Since the prisoner's arrest, been filled with stories about this man’s past life. I ask you as you respect your oaths to lay these stories aside altogether. They have nothing whatever to do with this case and they are such as should not have been

PROPAGATED BY THE PRESS

while the prisoner was under arrest. After the crime was committed, the Government obtained the services of a detective named Skeftington. No doubt he has charged them a good round sum of which you, gentlemen, will have to pay your share, But the only service he seems to hare rendered was to start these injurious reports to vlacken the character of the orisoner and to pre- jndice this case. [ask you tothrow this preju- dice aside. Let meaiso|remind you, gentlemen, that the Couasel for the prisoner havein this matter been

PLACED AT AN UNUSUAL DISADVANTAGE,

Asarule, when aman is charged with a serious crime of this kind, he is brought up before a magistrate, witnesses are examined, their depo- sitions aretaken down, the facts and circum- stances of the case are brought out, and the prisoner's connsel has an oppor- tunity, before the trial comes on, to obtain and bring forward evideace to. explain the circumstances which seem to criminate their client. Butin this case ths prisoner was in the tirat place taken up before the Grand Jury, whese investigation was private. The Fereman of the Grand Jury took notes of the depositions, but these notes could not be obtained, on the ground that the case was of a nature so serious—the very ground on which they should have been laid be- fore us. [heard that there was a watch in the case, and I thought that if [I could see it I might be able to obtain evidence explaining away the doubis respecting it. But I was not permitted to see the watch. I say it was wrong and unjust to keep from the prisoner and his counsel the only possible means there was for rebutting the evidence for the Crown. In refus- ing them, the Attorney-General was. perhaps act- ing according tothe rule; but ina case sueh as this it was not fair to enforce the rule in the strictest letter of the law. In this case, gentie- Thon,

THERE 13 NO DIRECT EVIDENCE.

The prosecution say that a groat crime was com- iitted, and the prosecuting attorney may think it necessary to enlarge onthe horrorsef the deed, and to bring it before you with al! its terrible details. Lam not here, gentlemen, to palliate the erime, and when the real criminal comes before the court, [say let him receive condign punish- ment. iut the question we are trying is whether

or not the prisoner at the bar is the murderer, and you must be satistied beyond a reasonable doubt that he is the marderer before you tind him guilty. Now as to the evidence. A standard writer, speaking of the character of evidence, eays:

* A distinction is to be noted between civil and

criminal cases, in respect to the deéyree or quan- tity of evidence necessary to justify the Jury in finding their verdict for the government. In civil cases, their duty is to weigh the evidence carefully, aad to flad for the party in whose favor the evidence preponderates, although it be not free from reasonable doubt. But, in criminal trials, the party accused is entitied tothe benefit of the legai presumption in favor of innocence, which, in doubtfal cases,is always sufficient to turn the scale in his favor. Itis, therefore, a rule of criminal jaw. tha! the quilt of the accused must be fuliy proved. Neithera mere preponderance

of evidence, nor any weight of preponderant evi dence is su vent for the purpose, unless it gener- ate full ief of the fact, to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt.” . . " **In Dr. Web- ster’s « . the learned Chief Justice explained this degree of proof in the following terms :— |

vn what isreasonable doubt?

It isa term olten u probebly. pretty well understood, but not easily defined. It is not mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs, and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, afrer the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of Jurors in that condition that they can- not say they fecl an abiding donviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge. The burden of proof is upon the prosecutor. All the nre- sumptions of law, independent of evidence, are in favor of innocence ; and every person is pre- sumed tobe innocent until he is proved puiliy.

| janine and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it. This we take te-be-proof beyond reason- able doubt; because if the law, which mostly depends upon considerations of a moral nature, should go further than this, and require absolute eertainty, it would exclude circumstantial evi- dence altogether.”

Mr. Peters then reviewed the evidence. He said the prosecution produced at the end of their case, with a great fourish of trumpets, a pair of stained trousers. What does that amouut to? Seme of the doctors say the stains were those of blood. It has been proved that the prisoner slaughtered a cow for Mr. William Prowse. Chere is no evidence to show that the blood was human blood; and cannot you account for the blood marks by this fact? Follew on again. We proved that in March or April he killed two pigs for Neil MePhee, and that he cut the pigs up. The inference drawn by the prosecution from the circumstance that blood spots were found on the trousers Ought therefore to be given up. It can not be pressed against the man, The evidence of the prosecution, taking their own proved dates, shows that it was impossible that the prisoner eould have committed the murder. They pro- duced Clarke to prove that

CALLAGHAN WAS LAST SEEN ALIVE

on the afternoon of Wednesday. Richard Flynn says that he was not to be found on the following Thursday morning. They tell you that the day was wet and they point out that the clothes were wet, If that be the case, Gillis could not have committed the crime, They haye proved to you by Mrs. Doyle that on Monday, some time in the afternoon or evening, Gillis came to her house and stayed there that night and until Tuesday evening, when he went away~—walking. Now, assum- ing that the Crown is right in their theory, MeMillan says that on some morning in May he met Gillis. He says, “I went tothe Souris train and this man was standing on the platform, and he asked to come tomy place.” That must have been on Wednesday, for he was at Mrs. Doyle's on Monday and Tuesday, and it couldn’t have been on Thursday, because he stayed at Mc Mil- lan’s two days. So that it must have been on Wednesday that he came to MecMillan’s. Then, how did hedo the murder? [Tf he were at Me- Millan’s all the time, how could he have done the deed on Wednesday? According to the evidence, he was sleeping at McMillan’s when, according to the theory of the prosecution, he ought to have been murdering Callaghan, Now, what is the other class of evidence they have against the man? Their theory is that he went back to Har- mony on Friday. tow do they prove this? What evidence have they brought! They bring first Mary Ellen McDonald, She swears tothe date. Bat she basno meansof fixing it; and we are met by the fact that she swore directly opposite when she was before the Grand Jury. The theory of the Crown was that he left Harmony on Monday,and she rose to the occasion and proved it. She also. perjured herself with respectito the watch. She was tortured, ii is said. [admit it was jtorture, but oecasioned by reason of her own act’ in committing perjury, which in a case of this kind, is almost as bad as murder itself. Nocrimeis more dastardly. The letters she wrote were admitted by her to be lies. Are you going to say that a witness of that kind is to be believed? Whomade her change her mind? Who talked to that girl? Had the reward any- thing to do with it?) Was it Michael J. McCarthy that came in the night and sowed tares in the mind of that girl? Some influence has been brought to bear upon her; but though well primed for the oecasion she broke down under cross examination. The next withess is Mrs. Mc- Donald, Sheis what! calla

THOROUGH GOING WITNESS,

ready to swear to everything for the Crown, and to nothing for the defence. What does she say? (Mr. Peters here quoted at length from Mrs. McDona!id’s evidence in cross examina- tion, and contended that it was utterly unworthy of credenee, and should not send a man to the gallows.) ‘The next witness is John McDonald. He says that he saw Gillis get off the train on Friday evening, and that he began to trace back to fina the date, the same week, long before ever the murder wasin any way connected with the prisoner at the bar. The next witness is Mr. Johan J, .Haley—one of _ those slippery oily customers who swears with a_ smile, on his face. He als» saysthat he spoke to Gillis on Friday, and fixed the day by means of hia day book; and that he began to trace back in his book about a week after. But there was not the most remote suspicion that Gillis had anything todo with the crime until some timein June. I this case is exemplified the great difficulty of fixing a date, and how careful you should be in receiving evidence of that kind. The strength of the chain is no greater than the strength of the weakest link, and in this case, though the witnesses are many,

THE CHAIN IS VERY WEAK.

If there isa doubt that he came back on Friday; if it appeacs that he retarned on Tuesday, it is for you to say whether those witnesses committed perjury or not. Mr. McPhee comes in here and roduces a book, in which he proves, by a per- ectly independent transaction, that Gillis came to his house on the 19th of May. Can you say that he and Mrs, Gillis have both perjured them- selves? You will remember that the prosecuting attorney was unable, with all his art, to catch MePee tripping. Nowthe prosecution say that certain articles belonging to Gatiaghan have been found in the prisoner's possession. In the first place they say he had Callaghan’s coin. But they have not proved that the coin shown belonged to Callaghan, nor have they traced it directly to the prisoner. There are lots of coins with holes in them. The coin 1s a common one in the Island. ‘t is just as much like another coin of the same kind and value as it can be. Are you sure that it was Callaghan’s coin. If there is the slightest doubt on the point, the evidence is of no value. The coin shows plainly on its face that it is worth two dollars only. (Coin passed round amongst the jury.) Yet it is in evidence that Gillis asked $2.50 for the coin he wished Mrs, Coffin to change, and that she offered $2.40 for it, which amount he refused. Is it reasonable to suppose that if Gillis had just teken it from the body of the murdered man, and was anxious to et rid of the eviderce of bis crime, he would not ave jumped at Mrs. Collin’s offer? Then Horace McEwen, who did change the coin, at first mixed up another transaction with this one, and, though an honest man, it is doubtful if he has yet un- ravelled the matter in his own mind. As to the watch, it does not appear that Callaghan had the watch in his possession since 1881. and there is no proof whatever that he had it when he died. Ona the contrary, they have proved by Mrs. Tierney that he may have parted with it, and several of the witnesses state that Gillis had a watch of this description long before the murder was com- mitted. The same appears to be the case

WITH RESPECT TO THE CHAIN,

Some of the witnesses think it is like Callaghan’s chain; not one of them will swear that itis Cal- laghan’s chain, Vr. James Lewis, a man whom Callaghan both knew and trusted, thinks it is not Callaghan’s chain--and he often saw it. Michael J. McCarthy says that before the murder Gillis told him he had a chain of this description, which Gillis asked him if he would buy. Gillis himself told the constable where to find ihe chain. Does that look like the act of a guilty man? Nowthere is the last evidence adduced, viz.: that Calla- ghan‘s waistcoat was foundin the trunk of Giilis. Is it likely that Gillis would have kept in his pos- session such proof of his guilt? and how did blood geton it, seeing that it was not on Callaghan? My client instructs me to say that that waistcoat was not in the trunk when le had it—that it must have been put into the trunk by some enemy Or by some one seeking for the $1.00) re- ward. Gentlemen, it is a disgrace upon the ad- ministration of justice in this country for the loose way that trank was left about the Sheriltf’s office, and passed from one to another; aud the amount of perjury that goes on in our courts is horrible. People will lie on the witness stand about a paltry $3) or $50, or aquarter of an acre of land;tand if so, what will they do to obtaina thousand dollars, which will lift them from poverty to affluence’ Is it unlikely that while the trunk was inthe Grand Jury room,

THE WAISTCOAT WAS PUT INTO IT? Having failed to prove that the waistcoat was found in the trunk when it was taken from Neil McPhee’s house, the fact that it was afterwards found in the trunk proves nothing. The prisoner denies positively that he ever had that waist- coat in his trank. [ aiked him carefally about it. He said: “My God! they must have put it into the trunk.”

Mr. Peters concluded his aldress, which lasted two hours, with an eloqasnt appeal to the Jary to giva the evidance their careful attention and a fair consideration to all the circumstances of the case ; and left it with them to say ‘‘whether it ba life

or whether it be death.”’ OUTLINE OF MR. HODGSON’S ADDRESS,

May it Ptrase Your Lorpsuip, GENTLEMEN or THk JURY,—It now becomes my duty, ag Counsel for the Crown, to address to you a few words concerning the issue that it is your duty to

if upon such proof there is reasonable doubt | decide. There is in this cage a chain of evidence

ie panning, the accused is entitied to the benetit of |supported by the mouths of forty witnesses.

litem protetaiit) ane sufficient to estab-| These witnesses come from Harmony, Mount y. igh a strong one, arising | Stewart, Charlottetown and i ie

from t doctrine of chances, that thy f . aud ity vieiniy. Is is

charged is more likely to be true than the

* convinces. and directs the undar-

Cee aa

ty ey Teasonabie and moral certainty ; 2 | away the life of th

fact possible, ne the learned counsel for the defence tr ; con- | 8uggests, that these wit r mic fe bat the evidence must establish the truth re ‘ veahale laa

selves together in an unholy league, to swear risone think not,

a then I think you have ttle doubt as to the

f ; prisoner's guilt, In the menth of “May there was “committed

A MOST BRUTAL MURDER,

No eye but those of the murderer and his victim, with the eye of God woking . upon them, saw the deed. But there seems to be an over-ruling Pro- vidence which brings home the murderer's crime. This has been done by circumstantial evidence. According to a great writer :

“Cireamstantial evidence is allowel to pre

vail to the conviction of an offender, not be- cause it is necessary apd politic that it should be resorted to, but because it isin itsown nature capable of producing the highest degree of mora! certainty in its application. Fortunately for the interests of society, crimes, especially those of great enormity and violence, can rarely be com- mitted without affording vestiges by which the offender may be traced and ascertained. The very measures which he adopts for his security not infrequently turn out to be the most cogent arguments of guilt.” . * “All human dealings and transactions are a vast context of circumstances, interwoven and connecied with each other, and also with the natural world, by innumerable links and ties. No one fact or cir- cumstance ever happens which does notowe its birth to a multitude of others, which is aot con- nected on every side by kindred facts, and which does nottend tothe generation of a host of de- pendent ones, which necessarily coincile and agree in their minutest bearings and relations, in perfect harmony and concord, without the slight- est discrepancy or disorder.” That, then, is what is called circumstantial evi- dence. Now, the junior counsel for the cefence advanced the theory that more than one person was present at the murder, But the senior coun- sel, very wisely and with commendable prudence, abandoned that theory, as well as the theory that the murder was committed for the purpose of obtaining possession of certain papers.

Mr. ARTHUR Pxrrers said the theories were not abandoned; they were only not referred to.

The Judge said the theory was not pressed,

Mr. Hodgson proceeded:—The murderer went to the Cemetery fer the purpose of obtaining

lunder, and he took property away with him. "he watch. the chain and the coin were stripped from the victim. There can be no doubt that the watches produced in Court were those of Calla-

han. The evidence of the watchmaker proves

eyond doubt that the watch belonged to Calla- chan. Mr. Wellner says that within two years he has seen the watchin Callaghan’s possession, and the counsel for the defence, with all their in- xenuity, have been

UNABLE TO FRAME A THEORY

to account for its transfer to Gillis’ pocket. As to the charm, they say itis a common thing. It is so common that they have been unable to produce another one like it. Mrs. Tierney (the murdered man’s sister), Ewen McDougall, Swan and Rack- ham, are all agreed as to the identity of the chain. Rackham says he saw the chain a few days before Callaghan’s decease. Can it be supposed that those witnesses have sworn falsely? hat earth- ly object can respectable men have to come before the court and perjure themselves } and unlessthey have perjured themselves I defy mortal man to say that is not Cailaghan’s chain, The counsel for the defence have exerted themeelves to the utmost, but they have been utterly unable to show where the chain came from. Gillis was never seen with a chain like this before the murder. Some of the witnesses said that the drop was longer, and so it was, One of the links is gone— has been taken off. (Mr. Hodgson here exhibited the chain and the drop, toshow thatas itis now the links connecting them would not fit.) Now, how did Gillis get possession of those articles? On the 15th of May he was at Harmony. On Monday, the 18th he was at Mount Stewart, at Mrs. Doyle’s. He left her house, walking, on

ne wee

1886

Sherif? McDonald or Sheriff Longwnrth, or Deputy Sheriff Curtis, John McKinnon or W. A. Weeks, did the dastardly deed. In order to sup- port their theory the Counsel for the defence has to suggest against one of these men—John Me- Kinnon, he probably meant, though he did not say it--such a dammable crime a¢ that. That is not fair hting, That is striking below the belt. That is stabbing in the back.

HOW MANY WATCHES

had Gillis previous tothe murder? The defence have not eee able ftojproduce a living witness who saw him with three watches. But they say it is unlikely the murderer would have Jeft a

object been plunder. We have it in evidence that this watch was found in an out ofthe way corner on the kitchen table; the blinds were down, night approaching,— and, we, say ,the murderer never oaerval the watch.

Mr. Hodgson then summei1 up the evi- dence, and concluded with an appeal to the jury to give their verdict without reference to the fate of the prisoner. It was not, he said, their duty to consign him to the gallows. Tho judge would do that. They had but to find a verdict according to the evidence.

ee

TuHurspay, Jan. 28.

Court opened at 11 o'clock this forenoon. The court room was crowded and much in- terest was evinced inthe proceedings. At a few minutes after 11 o'clock, His Honor, Judge Hensley, beganhis charge to the jury. It was an able and exhaustive effort, dealing with every phase of the ease. The learned judge began his charge by referring to the murder and related the circumstances connected with the finding of the body. After deing this he read extracts from the testimony of the witnesses for the prose- cution, comparing them with the testimony given in favor of the prisoner, and pointing out several discrepancies existing between the two. These he recommended to the careful consideration of the Jury. His Lordship concluded his eharg? at 4 o’eleck this afternoon, and the jury retired to con- sider a verdict.

The Civic Electicn.

Tue Civic Election yesterday was closely contested and great interest was evine d in the resalt. At an early hour in the morning the candidates, their supporters and represeutatives, as well as the usual number of curiosity-aeekers, were in at- tendance at the poila, Every conceivable kind of vehicle was pressed into active service, their drivers making the air re sound with Joud harrahs for their respec- tive candidates

Tuesday, On Wednesday, McMillan saw him standing at the Station in Charlottetown. He gave his name as McInnis, and told McMillan that he was at his place during the Exhibition, in company with Herman McDonald.

WHAT DOES HERMAN MACDONALD SWEAR?

He says that he was not at McMillan’s with any man named McInnis, but that he was there with Alexander Gillis, Are McDonald and McMillan members of the infamous band of perjurtrs who have conspired to Swear away the life of Gillis for the sake of the reward ?. Ibis a shame to say so, Herman McDonald I have long known. Heisa decent, respectable, honest farmer. He has had ne quarrel with the prisoner. No unworthy motive could have induced him to swear that Gillis was in his company when he was not. But to proceed: On Wednesday, we find Gillis in town ;on Thursday or Friday he turns up at Mount Stewart. His valise is secreted in the woods. How many valises are secreted in the woods? The woods is certainly a strange storing place for a valise. It strikes me as suspicious that the prisoner left his valise im the woods. There was some reason forit. But the learned counsel for the defence, with all their ingenuity, could find no reason. When Gillis left Mrs. Doyle’s, on Monday, he paid her nothing—he hed no money. But on Friday after his return he chang4d Callaghan’s Newfoundiand gold piece» the gold piece punched and marked by Callaghan himself. Mr. McEwen, the Station Master who changed the coin for him, says he has an indis- tinct idea that the man who changed the coin had ashort moustache. Gillishad been shaved on the previous Monday and it is not unlikely that ia the four days which had elapsed, the moustache had grown sufticiently to impress Mr, McEwen with this idea. Well, on the 22nd Gillis turns up at McDonalds, — acting like one conscience- stricken. What punishment so terrible as that inflicted by the conscience of the murderer, In imagination

TILE SCENE OF HIS CRIME 18 EVER BEFORE HIM,

and every incident in itis pictured in his mind. Conscience stricken, Gillis sat in a dark corner, behind the kitchen fire. He stayed a little while —restless and uneasy. On Saturday he returned and declared, with a_ terrible imprecation, that he must be hung this time. The counsel for the defence sought to make it appear that those words were uttered by Gillis while he was asleep. Butno. They were wrung from him in his anguish, and are a damning ,proof of his guilt. o word of the Callaghan marder had at this time reached Harmony: but murder will out. Now, it is not necessary that the counsel for the prosecution should stand as the champion of witnesses who have been traducedin Court. Buta few words may be said for Mary Ellen McDonald. She was tortured here by the keenest cross examination. The unrestrained communications she had with her lover before he was charged with the awful crime of murder, were read anc jeered at by the learned counsel, He did it for his client. He had to do it. The voice was the voice of Jacob, but the hands were those :of Esau. For the sake of the prisoner, this poor girl made one tremendous fall, and for the sake of the prisoner she was tortured and

SENT FAINTING FROM THE COURT,

And what does it all amount to? She wrote the prisoner some letters while he was in jail. charzed with larceny, and in those letters ex- pressions were used which conld not be found in a policy of insurance. But what do they amount to? The poor girl was under the terror of,a name- less shame. She knew that she brought sorrow upon the grey heads of her parents, and she wrote tothefather of her unborn child. Women are ever more faithful than men,and though Gillis was in jail for larceny she did not wish to give him up. Throw her eyidence out altogether and it makes no difference in this case, Gillis left Har- mony in debt and without money. Immediately after the murder he came back te Harmony with money and paid the debt. The Counsel for the defence might have explained how he got that money, but they have not done so, because it was Callaghan’s money. He told McCarthy that after he came from town he would sellhim aten dollar gold chain; when he came, he sold McCarthy old Callaghan’s chain for a dollar. Now, as to the alibi. The evidence given by McPhee is contradicted by that of Susan Coffin, Mrs. Doyle, McCarthy, James McDonald and ee: therefore McPhee must be mistaken. McPhee hasa wife whoisill. But he has also two daughters—one seventeen and the other about twenty. Why are they not here to clear their uncle? Oh! they have to stay at home and nurse their mother, Is there no kind person in the neighborhood willing to nurse their mother while they are in town proving that their uncle could not possibly be guilty of this dreadful crime? McPhee has also a son—he is not wanted to nurse his mother; whyishenothere?) McPhee says: “On Thursday [ left him (the prisoner) in bed”; and furtheron he says that on that same Thursday Gillis came to his house at six o’clock in the morning. How are these two statements to be reconciled? After all, it comes to this, that either the other witnesses are a bund of perjurers or the oid man MePhee is mistaken. McPhee says that on the 20th of May Gillis left his house, wearing a rubber coat; but Mrs. Gillis says that when he arrived at her house on that day he did not wear arubber coat. There is no consistency in the evideyce to prove an alibi. Now as to the

BLOOD ON THE GARMENTS.

Tne doctors with one consent say that the stains found in Gillis’ trunk are those of blood. S ange, isn't it, that blood seems to have stained every- thing belonging to the prisoner? Blood seems to stick to him. One of the witnesses says that when Gillis went to town the blood-stained trousers were on him, Then there is the blood- stained vest, identified by the tailor as the one he — ame presented to Callaghan froma pattern marked:

“Pp. CALLAGHAN, BHERWOOD, DEC. 1883.”

How did that vest reach Gillis’ trunk? The Counsel for the defence say that it was put there

somre one who singe the arrest has be charge of the trunk. That is to oy that cltner

¥5. Tbe chief interest centered in the contest

we the Mayoralty. Both sides were deter-

‘ned to return their men and worked

oth and nail to dv so. Asa result of their efforta Mayor Beer was re-elected by a small majority over his opponent, ex- Mayor Hooper. In Ward 1 there was no opposition, and consequently no election for Councillor, In Ward 2 Councillor Kelly was opposed by Thomas Z. Taylor, Mr. Kelly was elected by a majority of th rty-two. In Ward 3 the fight was bo- tween Councillor Davy and Mr. A. A. Me- Lean. The contest was very cloge and Mr, McLean was elected bv a small mojority. In Ward 4 Councillor McRae was re-elect- ed, In Ward 5 there was no opposition to Countilior Horne, and he was therefere elested by acclamation. Following is the vote polled :

FOR MAYOR.

Ward !—Beer..... iid «eiei<s.6 348 ” Me 0.0 Nanaia 6000 csecee IO were 2..Bew.... 6.2253 uk ores bnae > 141 a Hooper ..... » snes. vatdegh ste e BOG Ward 3—Beer ...... ee ‘tecelV3as> RE ee PE Nd gs ese ste ope sso is Ward 4—-Beee) oi. bis 6k 64.05. nt i ASS " EE Gre dn eos abut > ovis I88 Ward §6—Beer . ... ..6id i.e & Seeteas ae ” DE whikuuis’ edicee » hes Ses 282 ere Gee , . 2s ees Ee a

oe | FOR COUNCILLORS. Ward 1—No olootitms soo. ccidsiedicvodacs

et ery a Pree eee getter. te Oy i ctted caus: Se eee oi ues éqseasvbia See 6 6—MoLean...... ee Hew eus 198 6 &~ MGRMss «oss nose cabuce ‘ome Oe

se RICE 4 cia ne so Cavencheed cute: We z 5 —(No «lection )

The Council..rs elect will be sworn in to-morrow.

Grand Lodge of I. O. of G. T.

The semi-annual session of the Grand Lodge lL. & of G. T, met in Summerside on ‘fues- day, 26th irst. A number of representatives who arrived at Summerside on Monday night, attended the meeting of Summerside Lodze, where they were formally recsived by the members, the W, C. delivering an address of welcome.

The meeting of tho Grand Lodge was open- el at 1130 2. m. Delegates were present fom Charlettethwn, Marshfield, Murray Harbor, New Perth, Pownal, Mount Stewart, West St. Peter’s, Bey Fortune, Head BGills- boro, St. Petsr’s Bay, Montague, Tyne Valley, Uigg and other places, in all, fifteen Lodges being represeuted. The following officers were present : —

OG. W. C.—J. A. Lawson,

G., W. Ch.—Rev. E. Bell.

G, W. Secy.—L. U. Fow'er.

Cc. 8. of J. T.-Miss A, Ackerman.

G, W, M.—H. D MacEwen.

G. Guard. —“m. Kaneen.

G, W. A. Ssey —A. J. Campbell

R. GW, C.—J ©, Underhay.

The reports of G W. C, and G, Sesy, show- ed an incvease of ten Lodges, thus adding con- siderably to the membership. The finances also reports to be in a healthy condition,

A Commitee consisting cf J. C, Underhay, Rev. E. Bell and J. A, Lawson, were appoint- ed to confer with a committee appointed by the Grand Division, to petition the Local Government to enforce the Scott Act. Brose, L. U. Fowler, Robert Smaliwood and Ed- ward Lane, were chosen to assist the Grand Division in arranging for a temperance con- vention in March at Charlottetown,

At the public meeting in the evening an excellent programme was rendered, thus drawing to acloseone of the best meetings ever held by the I. O. of G, T.

—_—

M-. J. Dumais, night watchmaa at Jo- liette Station, on the Canada Pacific Rail- way, was accidentally killed on the 18th inst. He was taking wood into the freight shed when one of tlie hinges of the heavy door breaking struck him on the head, and he was thrown from the platform on the track below. where his skull was fearfully frac'ured, and he died in a few minutes, Dumais, who was seventy years of ave, had

been employed on the railway at Joliette for the last twenty-seven years.

JSANUAR.=X..2&:

watch behind him in Callaghan’s house, had their |

——

Better

TO THE

Value Than

WHOLESALE

een |

Ever |

'. ae eo 1) 3.

( UR new ramples of ROOTS and SHOES for spriag will soon be o1°, and we will have

the pleasure of calling ou our customers ia a short time,

We hope to reeeive your liberal patronaye as heretofore.

DORSEY, GOFF & CO,

Ch’town, Jan, 26, 1835,

SS

SX.. La oo

~30:-

L. EK. PROWSE requests a set- tlement of All Amounts duc him within 30 days.

Amounts not paid wil! be handed over for collection,

Dos: ictus; cad vA dts Nei ait

Sign of the BIG HAT, 74 Queen “treet. Ch’tewn, Jan. 21, ’86--eod wky

JAMES PATON & CO..,

W. A. WEERS

& Co., PRICES ALWAYS LOW!

Buy your Dry Goods from JAMES PATON & OO, the above Plan wi'l show you where to find them. Ch’town, Jan. 19, 1886.

Special Gale.

Ve ae ee ee

Closing-out of the Entice Stock of GENEtAL DRY GOODS at the

LENBEN HEUSE!

one eee - Qe auth

GEO. DIVIES & CO., interding te make a change in their present business, effer the whole of their MAG*iFL CENT STOCK OF MERCHANDEZE at prices that cannot fail to make a clearance.

This isa BONA FAD SALFV, as the stock must be ¢is- posed of during the next few months, and will preseata Grand Opportunity to all buyers for Cash.

(far Wholesale Customers will be supplied on the usual Terms.

Gi0, DAVIES & CO.

Ch’town, Dee, 9, 1885.

BOOK-BINDING PAPER-RULING

—-AND—

BLANK-BOOK MAKING, MONAGHAN’S BUILDING, = - = QUEEN SQUARE,

LL kinds of BOOK BINDING executed at Lowest Prices aad with Quick Despateh* A Ruling, cette and Perforating for the Trade promptly attended to, BLANK BOOKS A SPECIALTY.

e@ A Share of Patronage Solicited.

JAMES D. TAYLOR & CO.

QUEEN SQUARE.

Ch town, Jan. 12, 86 --Gmos 2aw

ye

vr { *

“ae

1 been