The Crime of the Century; Or, The Assassination of Dr. Patrick Henry Cronin

by Henry M. Hunt

THE PURCHASE OF THE FURNITURE.

"On the same day this man, J. B. Simonds, appeared at Revell's store. Now, it does not matter whether we have shown that he was a member of Camp 20 or any thing about it. It does not matter whether we know who he is, but it is part of the means used in this case, and for that reason it was admitted in evidence. He said to Hatfield, the salesman, that he wanted some of the cheapest furniture he could get. He was taken to the department where the cheapest furniture is kept. He was quick and firm in his selections. When he was shown a cheap bedstead he said, 'That is all right; I will take that.' When he was showed cheap chairs, he said, 'I will take them.' When Hatfield showed him other pieces of furniture, he said promptly, 'I will take them.' Then he said he wanted a cheap trunk, the largest in the store. They went to the trunk department and they picked out a packing trunk of the largest size. He said he wanted a common valise and a strap for the trunk. These articles were all produced and he went away. That must have been before the signing of the lease for the flat, because he comes back the next day and tells them to deliver the goods. He picked out the commonest furniture, stating that it was only for temporary use. The next day he went back and paid for the furniture and it was moved to 176 Clark street.

"Now, gentlemen, have you any doubt about that furniture going to that number? None of you can have a doubt on that question. When he went back to Revell's he said he wanted a larger sized strap; that the strap he got was too small, too light, and Mr. Hatfield said he would get him a larger strap, which he did and charged him 50 cents for it. Mr. Allen, who moved the furniture, said he took a bed; a bureau, a washstand, a mattress, a bowl, and pitcher, the trunk (the valise and strap were inside the trunk) and all the articles that this man Simonds had purchased, to 117 South Clark street. The shipping clerk Neahr, who packed the goods testified that the goods taken over there were the same as those bought by Simonds. This was followed by the evidence of McHale, the carpet layer, who said he laid the carpet in the front room of 117 Clark street; that Simonds appeared there and was very easy about the matter, not caring just how the carpet was laid, and he had the carpet laid in the front room. It is not for us to say what the objecting was in renting the flat at 117 Clark street; it is true that that number was selected; it is true that this furniture was purchased; it is true that the trunk was purchased and went with this furniture. Now we find that the only living person identified as occupying the room, in which this furniture was placed and the carpet laid, is the man Kunze. He was seen there with another man taller than himself. They were seen there frequently during the time the flat was occupied by this man Simonds, and Kunze was the man who was identified as being in that flat at the time. That is testified to by James, testified here in a manner that must convince you that he was telling the truth, because, in his evidence, he was not over-anxious about anything else. When the learned counsel for the defense asked him if he had ever been mistaken about men he had seen on the street, James said he might have been, that such a thing could happen, but he was not mistaken as to Kunze being the man who was in the flat. That evidence was before you, and that is the first time Kunze appears in this case, with the exception, perhaps, of his trip with Coughlin down to Peoria, which was in relation to another matter, and was only shown for the purpose of letting the jury know the intimacy that existed between Coughlin, the chairman of the committee and this man who was seen in the flat. He is just the kind of character, just the kind of man that Daniel Coughlin would have selected to occupy that room.

"This flat is occupied. We have shown that the furniture was moved in there, that the trunk was moved in, that the valise and all the articles purchased at Revell's were moved into that flat, and stayed there until the night of the 20th. You will remember that Collector Goldman, who collects the rents for this real estate firm, went to collect the rent for the flats on the morning of the 20th of March. He didn't find any one in, but he peeped through the letter hole and saw the carpet and furniture still there and went away. But when he returned the next morning, the 21st of March, the flat was vacant. And if you remember the other evidence, you will find that they moved in the evening. Now, why was that flat rented? Why was this furniture purchased? Is there any explanation on earth except that it was purchased and moved in for the very purpose for which it was used thereafter? Why they selected that flat at 117 South Clark street is not for us to answer. Why they should have moved the furniture in there first is problematic, except it was for the purpose of losing the identity and stopping the tracing of the property from where it was first purchased. That might have been the object. It is not necessary we should account for the reason of their having moved this furniture into that flat, but it is one piece of evidence in this case that follows along the line of the conspiracy.