A little testimony as to the good character of the prisoner closed the short and simple evidence adduced by the defence.

The prosecution brought a few witnesses to heal the slight injury to the good name of Samuel Rhoades, and the case was closed.

Public opinion was believed to have set strongly against the prisoner. One of his lawyers was known to have left the case within a day or two of the closing of the evidence for the prosecution. It was further rumored that his counsel had made an earnest effort to procure from him a confession, with the purpose of basing thereon an application for a sentence less than that for murder in the first degree. But it was reported that his wife strenuously opposed this scheme, saying that, if she was to lose her husband, at least she would not have his shame published to the world from his own lips. She had sat faithfully by him throughout the trial, and he was shown to be devotedly attached to her. She had called at a newspaper office, and complained bitterly of the tone of the press as unfairly hostile to him. But not the most friendly newspapers, the most devoted wife, nor the wisest counsel could save the unfortunate man against whom such an elaborate array of evidence had been accumulated, with a degree of research and accuracy seldom rivalled in the records of the courts of law. An admirable charge was delivered by Chief Justice Butler, wherein thoroughness and impartiality were shown in a high degree, but wherein, also, by reason of these very traits, the result of the trial could be surely foreseen.

The jury retired on Friday afternoon, November 7; and on Sunday morning, about nine o'clock, they requested to see the judge. They were brought back, and said they could not possibly agree without more light upon the evidence of a certain witness. They also wanted sundry documents which they had been requested to examine, but which the singular carelessness of the prosecuting counsel had failed to cause to be given to them. They returned again at two o'clock on Sunday afternoon, and rendered their verdict, that they found the defendant, William E. Udderzook, guilty of murder in the first degree. Even then he evinced no sign of emotion, but walked from the court room with perfect self-control. His counsel gave notice of a motion for a new trial.

The ballotings of the jury are somewhat interesting. They were as follows:

The "undecided" juror was a colored man, of whom the "Daily Local News" of West Chester considerately said: "In justice to him, we repeat the admiration of his associates, who give him [the] credit of being a man of sound mind and fine reasoning accomplishments"!

The counsel for the defendant had taken a great number of exceptions during the trial, but no one of them had the good fortune ultimately to be sustained. On July 2, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania sitting in banc, all the judges save Mr. Justice Gordon being present, affirmed the sentence of death. Chief Justice Agnew delivered the opinion. The great question in the case, he said, was the identity of A. C. Wilson and W. S. Goss. A variety of circumstances and many witnesses established, beyond a doubt, both the fact of this identity and the fact that the body found in Baer's woods was that of Goss. The most material of the exceptions alleged was the objection to the use of the photograph of Goss for the purpose of identification. It is established that a portrait or miniature painting, proved to resemble the person, can be thus used. It is true that a photograph is not the original likeness, but is only a copy taken upon paper from the negative. No artist who traced the lines can be called to prove its accuracy. The competency depends upon the reliability of the photograph as a work of art, and this no person was called to prove, either as an expert or otherwise. It came to this then whether or not the court would take judicial cognizance of photographs as an established means of producing a correct likeness? This the court could not refuse to do. The length of time that the process had been known, the scientific principles upon which it was based, its common use, combined to render any other decision impossible.

The objection to the proof of Goss's habits of intoxication, as a means of identification, was also pronounced untenable. The habit may be common to so many persons as to have little weight. "But habits are a means of identification, though with strength in proportion to their peculiarity. The weight of the habit was a matter for the jury."

Whether or not witnesses who were asked as to their recognition of the face of the corpse of the murdered man could really recognize it or not, was not for the court to determine. The weight of their evidence was for the jury to decide. The questions put to them were unobjectionable.

The many exceptions, all relating to facts and circumstances bearing on the question of identity, were not followed in detail. Their multitude" only denotes that the circumstances were numerous, and in this multiplication consists the strength of the proof."

No surprise could well be felt at the verdict. The prisoner had had every chance which could be given him. His reputation, earned by his past life, and such prepossessions as must always be based thereon, were wholly in his favor. He had as good counsel as could be engaged to act on his behalf. On the other hand, complaints were freely made that the management of the case against him was wofully poor. The conviction was said to have been secured, in spite of official incompetence, by the zeal of the lawyers privately engaged by the insurance companies, who collected every particle of evidence with such exhaustive thoroughness, and furnished it so well prepared and in such abundance to the government, that failure in the prosecution became almost an impossibility. But in one matter, in which the state counsel were thought to have given a great advantage to the defence, we should be inclined, judging only from the printed reports of the trial, to think that Mr. Wanger decided quite rightly, showing a sound appreciation of the character of his case, and some professional nerve. The indictment contained two counts: one charging the prisoner with the murder of W. S. Goss, the other charging him with the murder of a person unknown. The defendant's counsel insisted that the prosecution should decide upon which count it would proceed. The district-attorney at first refused to make the selection, but finally boldly announced his resolution to elect the count for the murder of W. S. Goss. This was, at

the time, regarded as a "decided point" gained by the defence, because the government assumed the double burden of proving not only the murder, but also the identity of the murdered man with one whom there was, at least, strong evidence to show had died a year and a half before the alleged commission of the crime. But the story of the whole case shows that it would have been utterly impossible to convict Udderzook of killing A. C. Wilson, or a man unknown. No motive could have been shown; and the evidence admissible under such a charge would certainly have done no more than to establish a moderate probability of his guilt. The charge of killing W. S. Goss, however, opened at once an immense field of testimony, otherwise incompetent and altogether meaningless, in which the motive became abundantly apparent. Obviously, in the fearless assumption of the greater burden lay also the greater, indeed the only, assurance of success.

The persistence and keenness with which the links in the chain. of evidence were discovered and put together excite great admiration, yet whoever has read this narrative must be conscious that the case lacks some element of interest which less striking and less complicated cases often possess. This is indeed true: to borrow a simile from the phraseology of dramatic criticism, we may say that the defect is as if one of the "unities," essential to artistic perfection, were wanting. The imperfection unquestionably exists; and it lies in this, that the case is wholly one-sided. There is no clashing of hostile probabilities to be overcome, no reconciliation to be effected between inconsistencies, no option to be ingeniously exercised between contradicting witnesses. The government made out an elaborate and perfect narrative, no material part of which can be regarded as having been ever powerfully assailed by the prisoner. The tale of a criminal trial, however clearly brought to result in conviction, but in which there has been no strong, and all but satisfactory defence, is æsthetically defective. Such was the difficulty in this instance. Udderzook really presented nothing worthy to be called a defence. did not produce A. C. Wilson, or any trace of him; he did not explain who Wilson was, or what was the origin of his own acquaintance, or the nature of his own connection with that mysterious person, who was allowed to pass across the scene, coming out of mystery, and in a few months plunging again into even more profound obscurity, and, during his brief sojourn in the

He

known world, proved to have had prior acquaintance with no persons save Udderzook and A. C. Goss. With the latter he corresponded; but A. C. Goss was not called to throw any light upon his singular friend. The way in which it was suggested that a corpse, not that of Goss, could have been brought into the burned house, was by means of the box stated to have contained machinery. Not only was no machinery found in the ruins after the fire, but no attempt was made to prove that any machinery had been borrowed, bought, or procured, or sent hither. Surely such proof, if the facts were so, could have been as easily obtained as it would have been valuable. Altogether, the prisoner furnished the spectacle of a man so utterly prostrated as to be unable to make a substan tial struggle for his life, a spectacle which many persons instinctively feel to be pitiable, even when they must believe the victim to be guilty, and which robs the lover of a hard-fought criminal cause of one-half the pleasure to which he feels entitled. Udderzook is still lying in jail, awaiting the execution of his sentence. As he disappointed many in not making a better defence, so he will disappoint many more if he dies without a confession covering the whole scheme of infamy from the inception of the fraud to the murderous conclusion.