Witnesses were next examined regarding the unaccountable absence of Leonard, but no light was thrown on the subject. His note, stating that he was a prisoner, was exhibited, and, after a copy of it was made, it was returned to Carlos. It only served to mystify matters more, andwas rather damaging than otherwise to the prisoner’s case. Nothing could be learned as to who put it in the post-office.
Myers, the other policeman, testified that he, in company with Mr. Haywood and Florence Darley, had made a thorough examination of Colonel Conrad’s study, as well as of the whole house, and that no money could be found. In the colonel’s private desk were nothing but papers and documents of no particular value.
Florence Darley confirmed this; and also testified that during the night she had heard the sound of a buggy in the road, but had thought nothing of it.
Mr. Haywood also confirmed Myers’ statement; and testified also that, during his interviews with Colonel Conrad on Wednesday, the colonel had alluded to the two young men, expressing his opinion that they were impostors, and that he feared their errand boded no good to him.
This testimony was the subject of close cross-questioning by both the prosecuting and defending attorneys, but Mr. Haywood could say nothing more definite, nor could he be drawn into making any inconsistent replies. Having thus perjured himself, he took his seat with an air of relief.
The cashier of the bank swore that Colonel Conrad had made no deposit for more than a month past.
After all the witnesses were examined, Carlos was invited to make his statement, which he did briefly, relating everything in detail as it had occurred except the matter of the paper containing the words “seven o’clock.” This he omitted, for reasons already known.
The summing up of the attorneys was short. The counsel for the prosecution analyzed Carlos’ statement, characterizing it as absurd, and reviewed the evidence carefully, making out a strong case against the prisoner. His eloquent portrayal of the terrible crime of murdering in cold blood a well-known and respected citizen need not be reproduced.
Mr. Royalton simply said that he would omit reviewing the evidence at present. He had no hope, and scarcely any desire, to have the prisoner discharged. He expected that his client would be held to await trial at the next general term, and he believed that at that time evidence would be produced that would honorably acquit him. That evidencecould not be submitted in a complete form now; more time was required to make desired investigations. His client declined to be examined, and was ready to submit to the decision of the court. But he warned the people against allowing their prejudices to get the better of their judgment—not to render a verdict, even in their secret thoughts, until a fair, full, and complete trial could be had.
“For then,” he concluded, “revelations may be made that will surprise all of us. Instead of wrath there may be sympathy, and the prisoner before you instead of receiving your condemnation, may be proved innocent, and not only innocent, but the victim of a foul conspiracy.”