What did he prove?
He put on one witness, and one only, who had played bridge with both of them in college, and he said they played for five cents a point.
Now, I trust your Honor knows better than I do how much of a game that would be. At poker I might guess, but I know little about bridge.
But what else?
He said that in a game one of them lost ninety dollars to the other one.
They were playing against each other, and one of them lost ninety dollars?
Ninety dollars!
Their joint money was just the same; and there is not another word of evidence in this case to sustain the statement of Mr. Crowe, who pleads to hang these boys. Your Honor, is it not trifling?
It would be trifling, excepting, your Honor, that we are dealing in human life. And we are dealing in more than that; we are dealing in the future fate of two families. We are talking of placing a blot upon the escutcheon of two houses that do not deserve it for nothing. And all that they can get out of their imagination is that there was a game of bridge and one lost ninety dollars to the other, and therefore they went out and committed murder.
What would I get if on the part of the defense we should resort to a thing like that? Could I expect anyone to have the slightest confidence in anything we have said? Your Honor knows that it is utterly absurd.
The evidence was absolutely worthless. The statement was made out of whole cloth, and Mr. Crowe felt like that policeman who came in here and perjured himself, as I will show you later on, who said that when
