ASHLAND WEEKLY JOURNAL, ASHLAND, KANSAS
June 28, 1895
JURY IN THE ERNEST CASE RETURNS A VERDICT OF GUILTY AS CHARGED.
The Verdict a Surprise to the Friends of the Defendant.
Trial Lasted Four Days and Was Stubbornly Contested-Full Report of the Case.
At 9 o’clock last Friday morning the case of State vs. Frank J. Ernest was called in the district court of this country and the work of empaneling a jury was begun. The regular panel was soon exhausted and a special venire of 40 men was called. Deputy sheriffs were soon scouring the country and the court passed considerable time in tedious waiting for men to arrive from which twelve jurors good and true could be selected. It was Saturday afternoon before the jury box was filled.
Counsel for the State in their opening statement said they expected to prove that Frank Ernest killed Sid Jackman; that the motive therefor was that Sid and been conveying information to the sheriff implicating defending in some cattle stealing and that he was employed to assist in ferreting out cattle thieves and that the deed was done in cold blood. The first witness,
T.J. JACKMAN, was called. He testified that he is a brother of the deceased and that he was in the office of Arnold & Carson on the morning of the shooting. He did not hear of the deed until perhaps half an hour after and immediately went up to their room and got his gun. Came back down street looking for Ernest and was going to use gun on him but didn’t meet him. Witness identified the blood stained garments worn by the deceased at the time he was killed, and said that he had been in the butcher shop and took a drink on the morning of the killing.
CHARLES FOSTER testified that he had been out in front of the butcher shop and on invitation of Sid he and defendant went into back room of shop and took a drink. Others came in and Sid wanted to “chip in” and get some more whisky. They did so and witness went out after it. When in front of alliance store he heard two shots, and going back encountered Ernest coming out, who told him not to go in there until an officer came and said “I had to do it or he would have killed me.” Witness remained near shop until Marshal Sughrue came and arrested Ernest and turned him over to the sheriff when he entered room with the marshal.
W.J. WORKMAN testified that he is a retired physician; had examined the body soon after the shooting; in his opinion either shot was fatal, and that death was probably instant.
MONDAY’S SESSION.
John Hall was the first witness called Monday. He gave his residence as Kingfisher O.T., having lately removed to Ashland; had known defendant about eight years; never saw gun on him in his life; described the position of body lying between trunk and stove, the left foot touching stove, right crossed over left leg, hands doubled under the body; the left closed and holding whittlings from a pine stick; described marks of wounds on back of body.
Cross examined: There was a powder burn on inside or ball of left hand, no blood on right hand; Ernest never had reputation of being a bad man and carrying a gun – not a man likely to carry one; wound on right side was higher up than the one on the left; didn’t know whether spots on back were made by bullets. Examination on this point was minute. Witness thought spots were the posterior portion of wounds. Saw Foster and Young in the shop as witness looked through back window; he was exact as to position of feed of the body, repeating that the left was on ash pit of stove, the right crossed over it and drawn up. Witness laid down on floor and illustrated position of the body.
On re-direct questioning witness said there was no other powder burn on the body; this was a fresh burn.
DR. W.F. TAYLOR was the next witness. He testified that he was a physician; was in Wildman & Day’s store at the time of shooting and did not hear shots; coroner’s jury was raising body as he entered the room and could not say just how it laid; examined body and found two pistol shot wounds, one at junction of fourth rib with breast bone on left side going through the heart, the other on right side 1 1/2 inches from the right margin of breast bone, four inches apart; bullets did not go through body; could feel one of the bullets in the back; did not probe the wounds; witness thought both wounds fatal, the one on left causing instant death; both legs were bent.
Cross-examined: Wound through heart was highest up in front; deceased was dead probably two hours when witness made examination; identified spots on back as posterior part of wounds; could feel bullet on right side; not certain as to the other; power of action might exist after wound on right side was inflicted; position of the knee probably the result of camped position of the body. Witness thought death was instant as any muscular action would have straightened the legs out if had had to push the body forward to do it.
Re-direct: Witness said the bullets hole on left was the largest and was torn; thought this shot was fired at longest range because the spiral motion of a bullet gives it greater execution at a distance from the muzzle of the gun.
Re-cross examined: Experience with gun shot wounds not extensive; not familiar with firearms; thought the first shot was the one in left breast. The holes in the coat of Jackman are almost one above the other. This is accounted for by the supposition that he threw his arm across his body, thus pulling his coat to the other side.
F.G. KEITH stated that he is a justice of the peace and conducted the inquest on the body of Sid Jackman. He testified to finding body and observing its position. Did not find gun on body but found knife lying within four or five inches of right hand, the large blade open. Witness was here shown a small pocket knife and indicated it as the one found and it was introduced into evidence.
CHARLES FOSTER was recalled and stated that he heard two shots almost instantaneously. Have known defendant seven or eight years and never knew him to carry a pistol.
LOT RAVENSCRAFT Sheriff of Clark county was the next witness. It had been rumored that he prosecution would spring a sensation with his testimony, but it was not apparent. He stated that he had known Ernest six or eight years, knew Murphy about the same length of time. Also knew John Hamilton, Charley Parker and the deceased. Said he had been engaged in ferreting out cattle thieves and was assisted by Sid Jackman. This was stated after numerous objections on the part of counsel for the defense, all of which were overruled by the court. Witness had watched the butcher shop of the defendant, and the slaughter pen, making his investigation in the latter part of last summer or early fall on the strength of information furnished by deceased. Witness then referred to a conversation with Murphy touching his talk about Murph’s manner of conducting his business, at which defendant was present. The conversation was opened by Murphy and occurred two or three miles north of town. The witness said he had made a great deal of talk about stealing and thought he had reason to.
Witness could not remember much of the conversation but said a third party was referred to as carrying news between himself and Ernest and Murphy. There was talk about some one interfering with a trade of theirs made for some cows last summer. Witness said the party denied any interference, but Murphy said a good man had stood by and heard him say that he did. Witness said the manner of Murphy and Ernest at this time did not denote anger. They had heard of his talk and apparently wanted to know the straight of it. Murphy said the party accuse them of taking their business away from his house. In answer to question, witness said his reference to a third party meant Sid Jackman. Ernest took very little part in the conversation. I did not find anything wrong with their business and so informed Murphy. Think the whole trouble was caused by parties carrying news between myself and Murphy and Ernest. I didn’t have Sid Jackman employed to assist in catching thieves. Witness further testified that Ernest didn’t manifest any feeling toward the third party referred to. This closed direct testimony for the state.
Monday afternoon the council for defense in their statement of the case said they admitted that defendant killed Sid Jackman but expected to prove that he did so in self defense, and that prior to the Friday before the killing the defendant never suspected anything wrong. The first witness called to the stand was the defendant.
J. F. ERNEST, who testified as to his residence and business in this county. Said he was married in February, 1888, he thought, to Ella Ruffin by whom he had three children, two of them living – a boy aged about five years and a girl two years old. Since the shooting he has resided about 9 miles southwest of Ashland and has not lived with his wife and children.
On Friday before the tragedy he was building a dam across Bear Creek near town, to put up ice when Sid Jackman came along and asked him to take a drink. Witness accepted the invitation and as the bottle was handed him saw his wife’s ring on Sid’s hand. He went home and asked his wife about it. She denied anything wrong and said Sid got ring in alliance store saying he wanted it for a day or two to fool a girl in the north part of town. Witness said he saw Sid next day on Main street; met his wife coming down street; she went on toward home while witness stood talking with some one, and a little later went down street (south) and looked into Smith’s store. Saw a woman in back part of store that he thought was his wife, but did not recognize her fully. Saw Sid Jackman in there. This was about 4:00 p.m. Went into store and passed Sid about half way across room. He had locked back door after the woman went out, went to door and saw my wife going toward show shop in direction of home; overtook and went home and upbraided her for being in there with Sid. She denied it at first but finally admitted to being there. Said she had gone to him to get her ring and denied any wrong doing. Quarreled with her till dark about it; did not sleep with her. She finally said Sid was following and meeting her every chance he had and she had finally told him to let her alone or she would tell her husband. Sid said “if you tell him I’ll kill the s– of a b–.” Witness remained at home Sunday and part of Monday following, going to the country that day to look after cattle, and returning about sundown. He was at home that night — didn’t sleep with wife and after breakfast Tuesday went to town intending to go and cut some cattle with Murphy. Murphy was not on hand and witness went up the street, seeing Sid near Rice’s store. In front of butcher shop Sid invited witness to drink and with Charley Foster went into the back room of shop and drank. Some others came in and the liquor was soon exhausted when Sid proposed to “chip in” and get some more. They did so and Foster went to get it, the others going out then or a little before. As Foster left the shop witness said to Jackman, “Sid, you are trying to break up my family and have said if I interfere you will kill me; now what are you going to do about it?” Jackman rose up and making a gesture said “God damn you, I will kill you.” I pulled my gun and fired twice. Think he struck the chair in falling. When he jumped up he had a knife in his hand. I went out to give myself up, meeting Foster as I did so. Told him not to go in there until officers came and said I had to do it or he would have killed me. Mike Sughrue, city marshal, came soon and I gave myself up. Witness further said he was not armed at the dam nor on Saturday after, and only carried a gun when going to the country, and happened to have it that morning because he was going to the country.
On cross examination the witness detailed his life in Kansas, his connection with Murphy, acquaintance with Sid Jackman and his marriage. It was developed that she had been divorced and had married him four or five months after. Witness said the woman never had confessed to any infidelity with Jackman but he didn’t believe her statement. He first spoke to her about her conduct on the Friday before the killing. Had separated from her once before for three weeks owing to her going to Wichita fair without his consent. In answer to question witness said he didn’t believe his wife’s statement in regard to the ring and had not slept with her after that time; believed her unfaithful. Described minutely his movements on the Saturday before the tragedy as stated in direct examination. The examination of the prosecution was very searching and at times the witness seemed hardly able to follow the volley of questions fired at him. The prosecution gained form him the admission that he had charged the woman with going into Smith’s store to commit adultery with Sid Jackman, which she denied. He had fully made up his mind not to live with her again.
Witness repeated his testimony as to his movements up to the time of the shooting. Counsel referred to visits of his wife to witness in jail; he denied that he had upbraided her with committing adultery with every man in the country who desired to. Witness had once been indicted for stealing some whiskey in this county.
On re-direct examination he said he was indicted with three or four others, described the circumstances and said the case was finally dismissed. Then followed some testimony in reference to employing attorneys, his wife’s visits to jail and his telling her to stay away from him and he had never visited or talked with her since.
On re-cross examination witness declared he was now convinced his wife was of easy virtue.
MANSFORD BROWN was the next witness. he was one of the coroner’s jury, described the position of the body in the room where the killing occurred, and said defendants reputation as a quiet peaceable man was always good, the main part of his testimony was to exact measurements taken of the room and objects in it. The next witness called was
JAS. A. MURPHY, who stated that he was the partner of the defendant in stock business, heard the shots when passing the street and almost to butcher shop; he “didn’t want to stop any bullets” and stepped back under protection of the brick buildings; heard sound as of a chair or box dragged on the floor of the butcher shop, or of something falling; saw the body of the deceased; there was a powder burn on fingers of right hand. Witness detailed the conversation with sheriff in Ernest’s presence north of town. When he referred to third parties he had in mind Tom Jackman and Bob Edgar; never referred to Sid at all; never heard Sid was assisting the officers; Ernest’s reputation was always good; deceased generally carried a gun, and was quarrelsome when drinking. Some further testimony was given in reference to the talk with the sheriff; witness did not expect the shooting that morning; thought shots were fired as close together as they could be.
This closed the trial for the day and court adjourned until 9 o’clock.
TUESDAY MORNING.
Mr. Murphy resumed the stand and the examination proceeded. Witness said he had never suspected Sid of trying to lay a trap for himself and Ernest, or trying to connect them with cattle stealing; had another talk with sheriff in front of butcher shop about the original conversations; asked sheriff if he was satisfied with investigation of their business; he was; witness said he hadn’t said he knew Sid had given information to sheriff, and didn’t say he knew he had put cattle in their herd; know of circle dot animals and red steer but never told Ernest to let them alone, and didn’t say he expected the killing a week or 10 days before it did occur.
On direct examination witness said he had a talk with Tom Jackman concerning the clothing of Sid before he left for Texas with the body. Was asked to burn the bloody clothing and given key to room. After thinking it over he refused to touch garments and return key. Witness knew of no hard feelings between any of the parties — Sid, Ernest, or himself. Never had any reference to Sid Jackman in conversation with sheriff.
Lot Ravenscraft was recalled and testified to reputation of defendant as a peaceable, law-abiding citizen, never heard of his having trouble; was acquainted with deceased, knew he carried a gun and was quarrelsome and abusive when drinking. Cross examined he said it was not unusual for cowmen to carry a gun.
N.J. WALDEN testified that he had known defendant 9 or 10 years and that his general reputation was good. Knew deceased who had reputation of carrying gun. Cross examination he said it was not very unusual for cowmen to carry a gun.
W.C. DUGAN said he had known Ernest seven years and never heard anything detrimental about his character.
JOE SMITH 18 years old, was the next witness. He is a clothing merchant and was in Ashland on January 29, last; remembered the killing, saw the deceased on Saturday, January 26; he was in store; didn’t see Mrs. Ernest in there. Witness was outside in front at the time; saw Ernest go into store; Sid locked back door and came out the front, went up street toward his room, returning within 15 minutes smiling. Art Hoover was the only other person in the room at the time. On cross examination he said it was not unusual to see Sid laughing.
MIKE SUGHRUE who has been here since 1884 as sheriff or marshal, testified that he had known defendant 12 years, part of the time before he came to this county, and that his reputation as a citizen was very good. Knew Jackman four or five years and knew he carried a gun. Had heard that he was quarrelsome and overbearing when drinking. On cross examination he said it was not very unusual for cowmen to carry a gun.
A.M. VAN LANINGHAM testified that he has lived in Ashland seven or eight years and knew defendant most of that time; his general reputation is that of a peaceable, quiet citizen. Knew Sid Jackman and heard he was quarrelsome when drinking; don’t know as to his carrying arms.
R.N. MOLYNEUX, a merchant, had known Ernest seven or eight years; his reputation was always good. Knew Sid Jackman but not acquainted with his reputation as to carrying arms or quarreling.
AARON WAY knew both defendant and deceased several years. Defendants reputation has been good. Jackman’s reputation bad.
L.W. JOHNSON stated that he had known defendant 8 or 9 years; his general reputation was good. Knew deceased since he came to town; he generally carried a gun and was quarrelsome when drinking. On cross examination, witness said he was not making himself active in this case.
J.H. CLAY, the next witness, said he had lived in Ashland seven years, was in town on January 29th and remembered the killing of Sid Jackman, was passing along down the street in front of Buckles’ barber shop; heard both shots; think I took three or four steps between shots. Saw Murphy in front of drug store; didn’t see Foster. Have known Ernest eight or nine years as a good, law-abiding citizen; acquainted with Jackman several years; knew he carried arms and was inclined to be quarrelsome. The cross examination of this witness was very searching and got him a little rattled. His testimony before the coroner did not correspond to that given at the trial and counsel made the most of the discrepancy. He stated in answer to Mr. Story’s questioning that he was in front of a barber shop but nearest to butcher shop at first shot; did not at once located it; was almost to door of butcher shop at second shot; shots not as close together as they could be fired; didn’t hear any fall or any sound but the shots; saw Murphy in front of drug store; didn’t notice any one on the street before first shot; noticed a group of men further down the street; at second shot saw Murphy coming north toward me. Counsel took up the testimony of witness at coroner’s inquest; witness identified his signature to it; couldn’t remember whether it had been read to him before he signed it. Counsel read testimony in which witness said he had heard deceased just after first shot exclaim “Oh my!” and at second shot “Oh!” Was standing in front of drug store when Ernest came out and inquired for marshal, saying he wanted to give himself up. Witness went for the officer. On re-direct examination he said there was a door and window on south side of back room of butcher shop. Testimony at inquest was taken in long hand; thought it had not been read to him before signing, and was taken amid confusion.
J.P. CAMPBELL testified that he had known defendant four years and that his reputation was good; knew deceased about same time, knew that he carried arms but couldn’t say that he was quarrelsome; it is unusual for cowmen to carry arms in town; was at ranch on day of shooting, had no notice that here was to be any shooting and didn’t recollect saying to the county attorney that he expected the tragedy on the day before it occurred.
John Clay was recalled by the defense and said that he went into the butcher shop just after the shooting; saw the body before it was disturbed; Sughrue and Workman went in with him; described position of body, saying the feet were on the north side of stove, right leg over left; body lying in passageway north of stove.
Re-cross-examined he repeated statement as to persons entering room after shooting. Counsel for state read testimony of witness at inquest in which he stated that Foster entered the room first, then me (witness) then Workman; body fell on north side of stove without touching stove, he thought; chair near body leaning against north wall. Counsel pinned witness down closely and had him rattled.
On re-direct questioning, said he hadn’t read testimony at inquest, didn’t know whether it contained all his evidence.
Defendant, Frank Ernest, was recalled, and said he was present at the talk with sheriff and Murphy north of town; didn’t know who was referred to as “he” and “him;” deceased name was not mentioned; didn’t know that Murphy referred to Sid; knew Sid carried a gun; saw him take it off frequently and get on scale to weigh himself; carried it in pants between suspender straps; Jackman stood south of stove with side toward me talking to Foster; didn’t notice whether he was armed when in shop prior to shooting; had no ill-feeling toward deceased prior to seeing wife’s ring on his hand.
Witness identified certificate of his marriage to Ella Ruffin, which was introduced as evidence and shown to jury. Certificate showed that marriage took place at Alpine, Ind. Ter., January 10th, 1888; witnessed by J.E. Dale and J. M. Parson, and signed by Allen C. Bender, a minister of the gospel. Witness said he got certificate from minister at time of marriage; he had little educational advantage; had only three week’s schooling; Jackman had told witness of his fights.
Re-cross-examined witness said he heard nothing indicating that Sid Jackman was referred to in that talk with sheriff; sheriff said somebody was carrying news; went to sheriff with Murphy to hear what was said; knew sheriff would be asked about his talk about them; didn’t think his (witness’) name was implicated when talk was made; didn’t know he had been accused of stealing cattle; talk was made about Murphy; didn’t hear anything said about some one interfering with trade; sheriff said he had been talking probably too much; remembered little of conversation with sheriff; didn’t know of circle-dot cattle and red steer; they were Messings and were cut out by Nations.
Questioned re-direct again witness said his hearing was not good; heard only with one ear; at time of marrying he had advised with Dawson Smith (Smith was the partner of Judge Price at the time advice was taken because the laws of Kansas didn’t permit divorced parties to marry within six months after divorce.)
At this point court adjourned for dinner.
TUESDAY AFTERNOON’S SESSION
Defendant Ernest was recalled; asked the size and power of deceased; said he was not so large a man as witness, but more powerful.
Charles Foster was recalled. The chair Jackman said in was produced and witness showed how deceased sat in it, leaning back so that front legs were raised about four or five inches from the floor.
Dr. Workman was recalled and said that his practice of surgery was limited to that of a country doctor; thought it possible for the body to fall in position in which it was found if the deceased had been standing.
Cross-examined, he said he thought it probable that deceased was sitting when shot.
Questioned re-directly again he thought fender of stove on which the foot of deceased rested was 16 inches from the floor; would be surprised to learn it was over two feet.
At this point the defense rested and the state began the introduction of evidence in rebuttal with Sheriff Ravenscraft on the stand. He stated that after the tragedy he had another talk with Murphy about their first talk north of town, on the street in front of butcher shop about 15th or 20th of March; denied to Murphy that he used Sid Jackman’s name in first conversation but said both of them knew he was the party referred to; said Murphy told defendant to let those cattle alone that deceased “was going to give us away.” This answer was withdrawn from jury so far as it related to defendant who was not present. Witness said he had defendant in custody after the killing; wife visited him three or four times, more or less; saw them together during part of first visit; their manner was affectionate; she sat on his lap, his arms around her; wife came again next day; saw nothing unusual between them; gave little attention to them; didn’t try to hear what was said; defendant gave his version of killing just after it occurred.
What he said was objected to by counsel for defendant and the witness was reluctant to tell it as it had been given him in confidence. The court could recognize no confidential relationship between an officer and prisoner and told witness he must tell it. Witness then said he asked Ernest if deceased got his gun out; defendant said said he didn’t see it and showed how deceased grabbed vest as if to get gun as he exclaimed “g– d– you I will kill you;” defendant didn’t mention seeing knife in deceased’s hand.
Being cross examined, he said he hadn’t told all the conversation with defendant; thought he asked if Sid got his gun out; asked that question because he knew deceased carried a gun; defendant said deceased grabbed his vest with left hand; didn’t ask if he saw a knife. Witness created something of a sensation when he stated that he expected trouble with deceased himself over some cattle business; defendant said “that’s the way this started; Side said when those s–s of b– get back (meaning cattle inspectors) he was going to rake you fellows (Murphy and Ernest) over the coals and you (meaning the sheriff) too. Don’t think I told him the body was found armed; Don’t remember telling him that no gun was found on the body and that it made no difference as it was a good thing anyway; might have said so. Witness said he expected trouble over 30 head of “burnt” cattle Jackman bought of Packer, not over that steer at stockyards.
F.G Keith recalled. Testimony of Clay at inquest was read to witness; said it was Clay’s testimony as he recollected it. Cross examined, he recollected who went into room first; hadn’t attempted to remember all the testimony; might be possible Clay said Sughrue went in before Foster; jurors at inquest were asking questions.
J.M. GRISHAM, county attorney, was placed on stand and said that J.P. Campbell had stated in his office that he expected the shooting or something serious to happen the day before it did. On cross examination witness would not say Campbell said he expected the shooting but he thought it would be the other way; there was some discussion of the matter and Campbell said he “expected it to occur Monday” and that he left the room where the men were that he might not be present if anything did occur; had this conversation on Monday following the shooting. Counsel asked if on the Monday following the tragedy Campbell didn’t say he expected the two men would have trouble but he expected Jackman would have killed Ernest. Witness answered “yes, expect that part as to which would kill the other.”
Tom Jackman, in rebuttal, said at one time he had a talk with Murphy, Ernest and Parker; they asked him what Ravenscraft was doing about cattle stealing; told them didn’t know who Lot was after but he was pretty close to some of them and that the sooner they quit this “rustling” the better off they’d be; Ernest was running butcher shop at this time; witness was working for Ravenscraft on the range; was never threatened with arrest and never asked as to one particular steer; never “burnt” a brand; that matter had been fully investigated and he was not bothered; didn’t remember what any of the parties said when he told them that.
R.B. EDGAR said he had known Ernest 15 years, Murphy about eight or nine; never carried any information from sheriff to any one; knew deceased five years and never considered him quarrelsome. Cross-examined he said he never heard of deceased’s quarrel with Ames and others; heard about a fight with Fridley at Coldwater, but didn’t remember that he said he had forgotten his gun or he would have killed Fridely.
B.H. CAMPBELL stated that he was a resident of Wichita; knew deceased who was in his employ about two years; never heard his character discussed; he didn’t have the reputation of being quarrelsome. Cross-examined he said he resided at Wichita, but spent much of his time on the range; deceased was in him employ in ’89-’90; had not been here a large proportion of the time since Jackman had been here.
M.A. NATIONS stated that he had intimately known deceased since he came to this county; didn’t think his general reputation was that of being quarrelsome; was in town Sunday before killing, saw Jackman that day; saw Ernest just after noon. Cross-examined: Never saw anything wrong with deceased when drinking; didn’t see his trouble with Ames; heard of the fight with Friedley.
Counsel on both sides informed the court that they would call no more witnesses and court was adjourned until Wednesday morning to enable the Judge to prepare his instructions to the jury.
WEDNESDAY MORNING
Wednesday morning defendant was called to the stand and testified that deceased had told him of a shooting scrape in a Texas bank, that he had carved a n***** in the same state, had knocked Capt. Ames in the head with a bottle in Smith’s store, cleaned out a whole regiment of G.A.R. men in Beaver county and had pulled Mike Sutton’s nose in a hotel here in town. Cross-examined he said deceased had talked with him a great deal.
After some delay Judge Price read his instructions to the jury. Instructions were quite lengthy but very concise and clear, defining the duty that now devolved upon the jury.
Judge Kone opened the argument for the state and made a good plea from his standpoint talking nearly two hours. Owing to lack of time and space we cannot give a synopsis of the argument of counsel – wish we could – but suffice to say both side did their best.
Ben E. Page opened for the defense and made his usual cool, argumentative address, occupying nearly two hours.
County Attorney Grasham made his first appearance before a jury and talked impressively for 30 mintues.
Mr. Mayse followed for the defense and made the best talk he has ever made in the court room. He talked 38 minutes.
Mr. Bone closed the defense, spending an hour and 20 minutes before adjournment for supper. His argument was concluded at 8:30 and was one of the best pleas he ever made in this court.
District Attorney Story, of Texas, closed for the state and even the friends of the defendant admit that he made a strong plea for conviction in the hour and 20 minutes that he addressed the jury.
The court room was crowded all day, many people coming in from the country. Interest in the case was intense, the defendant being an old resident of the county. The dead man, too, had a general acquaintance and his friends were also present. Court adjourned abut 9:30 p.m. and the fate of Frank Ernest was left in the hands of twelve of his peers. Both sides were confident – the state that it would get a conviction, and the defense that the verdict would be an acquittal. We think, however, that, the majority of the people expected the jury to “hang.”
Yesterday morning when court convened the jury in this case came into the box with a sealed verdict which they arrived at about two o’clock in the morning. When opened and read Frank Ernest was condemned to death for the murder in the first degree. It was plainly seen that the verdict was a surprise to all but the prosecution and its friends. The defendant himself apparently had nerved himself for whatever might come and accepted it without manifesting any feeling beyond turning pale. After the jury was polled he was remanded to the custody of the sheriff and must remain in jail until after a new trial of this case if it is ever secured. The attorneys for the defense will move for a re-hearing of the case and failing in that, as it is thought they will, will appeal to the supreme court.
When being taken to prison by the sheriff the officer remarked that “this is pretty hard.” “Yes” said Ernest “but I feel all right here,” laying his hand on his heart.
The worst feature of the case to the friends of Ernest is the fact that he continued to live with his wife after that Friday night when by his own testimony he had lost confidence in her. Also that he had appeared to be friendly to Jackman after what he had discovered and drank with him the same as when he considered him his friend. It has been learned from the Jury that the woman business had little to do with the case in their opinion, they considering that they tragedy was a result of threatened exposure in relation to cattle business. Ernest’s friends cannot see how this could be when the sheriff testifies that there was nothing wrong with their business. The story of the killing told the sheriff by defendant probably bore strongest on the minds of the jury for conviction. Perhaps undue weight is given this. It was told in a moment of great excitement when men hardly know what they do or say. The other side, of course does not look at it in this light. It is a sad thing that one mad should have to die and another be deprived of his liberty – almost his life – for the cause that led to this tragedy.
Transcribed from: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/106143123/ & https://www.newspapers.com/clip/106143147/