MICROFILMED 1985 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - BERKELEY GENERAL LIBRARY BERKELEY, CA 94720 COOPERATIVE PRESERVATION MICROFILMING PROJECT THE RESEARCH LIBRARIES GROUP, INC. Funded by ~ THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES THE ANDREW W. MELLON FOUNDATION Reproductions may not be made without permission. SN 0054(- 6 THE PRINTING MASTER FROM WHICH THIS REPRODUCTION WAS MADE IS HELD BY THE MAIN LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, CA 94720 FOR ADDITIONAL REPRODUCTION REQUEST MASTER NEGATIVE NUMBER §5- (35 § AUTHOR? Montqomer Y ) & ach. TITLE: The Schroder traf. pLace: LC Oakland J pate: Ce ($%1] VOLUME CALL F 869 MASTER 35° NO. QLM6 X NEG. NO. [$5 — TRE ay FRED ontegomery, Zach sR NE The Schroder tricl. Fottom fects end lesding x incidents connected with the %illine of Dr. Allred LeFevre, snd the tricl und cisgre~={ul acouittel of the slayer. Undoult:ited innocencc oi" tne de- ceased o.. Lv Zec! Lcocnigcielry ee. [ caklsno,. clffla lp. front. (rort.) 23cm. 2 copies. Cop. 2 lecls port. 18877 17543B cop.2 )) Ss FILMED AND PROCESSED BY LIBRARY PHOTOGRAPHIC SERVICE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY. CA 94720 weno. 85 1) 7|14|3 DATE 5 g[5 REDUCTION RATIO q 2OURCE | THE BANCROFT LIBRARY SOURCE 10 Ele jz ize [22 [22 ri la EE Cie _ ll .8 2 [lL Je MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIAL 1010a (ANSI and ISO TEST CHART No. 2) METRIC) 2 13 a oon BR ke rrerterre ye uy Ha 33 1 TIT TTT TTT TT TT TT TTT IT TT TTT TTI 14 LLG LL LLG HLL CHES ET [HTH Ey Shine © * 1| TRUE THEORY as to THE CAUSE of the KILLING, P Ls ig Pa. ae Ph Jw ay $ M ZFS ? . od —~— . . on bs . « . : : ha \ or . LN . . i . . * O24 - ? 4 J ’ \ \ SCHRODER TRIAL | FACTS AND LEADING INCIDENTS CONNECTED WITH THE DR. ALFRED LeFEVRE, AND THE Trial and Disgraceful Acquittal of the Slayer. UNDOUBTED INNOCENCE OF THE DEGEASED. THE VEILED WOMAN THAT THREATENED TO HAVE REVENGE, And How She Accomplished Her Threat. AS GATHERED FROM : Evidence Adduced, Evidence Excluded and Evidence Suppressed. a? 3 Why Mrs. Schroder was not called as a Witness. VALUABLE DISCOVERY in the LAW of EVIDENCE. An Entirely New, Convenient and Perfectly Safe Mode, of Proving by one’s Own Wife, a Criminal Intimacy (which never occurred) between Herself and her Imaginary Paramour, in order to justify the killing of the. latter: without sub- jecting the dear creature to the mortifica- tion of a cross-examination, or to the perils of a prosecution for perjury. | » The authgl g ict in publishing this pamphlet is not to villify the guilty livipoalmt to éate the memory of the slandered dead. EY ; oP oo DEDICATED ; 8 To the Lovers of Truth, Justice and the impartial administration | h of the Law. 5 "BY ZACH MONTGOMERY, Of Counsel for the State. a - COPYRIGHTED [881, BY ZACH MONTGOMERY. Retake of Preceding Frame wD ’ 7 “FH & dn / 7 CAL End ( (A 2 t SCHRODER TRIAL. BOTTOM FACTS AND LEADING INCIDENTS CONNECTED WITH THE KILLING DR. ALFRED LeFEVRLE, AND THE Trial and Disgraceful Acquittal of the Slayer. UNDOUBTED INNOCENCE OF THE DECEASED. THE VEILED WOMAN THAT THREATENED TO HAVE REVENGE, And How She Accomplished Her Threat. TRUE THEORY as to THE CAUSE of the KILLING, AS GATHERED FROM Evidence Adduced, Evidence Excluded and Evidence Suppressed. Why Mrs. Schroder was not called as a Witness. VALUABLE DISCOVERY in the LAW of EVIDENCE. An Entirely New, Convenient and Perfectly Safe Mode, of Proving by one's Own Wife, a Criminal Intimacy (which never occurred) between Herself and her Imaginary Paramour, in order to justify the killing of the latter: without sub- jecting the dear creature to the mortifica- tion of a cross-examination, or to the perils of a prosecution for perjury. dlp The author’s object in publishing this pamphlet is not to villify the guilty living; but to vintticate the memory of the slandered dead. DEDICATED To the Lovers of Truth, Justice and the impartial administration of the Law. BY ZACH MONTGOMERY, Of Counsel for the State. COPYRIGHTED 1881, BY ZACH MONTGOMERY. Retake of Preceding Frame | { | | | | | TET EB SCHRODER TRIAL. ee AP BOTTOM FACTS AND LEADING INCIDENTS CONNECTED WITH THE KILLING DR. ALFRED lLeFKV RE, Trial and Disgraceful Acquittal of the Slayer. AND THE UNDOUBTED INNOCENCE OF THE DECEASED. THE VEILED WOMAN THAT THREATENED TO HAVE REVENGE, And How She Accomplished Her Threat. AS GATHERED FROM Evidence Adduced, Evidence Excluded and Evidence Suppressed. Why Mrs. Schroder was not called as a Witness. VALUABLE DISCOVERY in the LAW of EVIDENCE. An Entirely New, Convenient and Perfectly Safe Mode, of Proving by one’s Own Wife, a Criminal Intimacy (which never occurred) between Herself and her Imaginary Paramour, in order to justify the killing of the latter: without sub- jecting the dear creature to the mortifica- tion of a cross-examination, or to the perils of a prosecution for perjury. The author's object in publishing this pamphlet is not to villity the culty living, but to vin@ticate the memory of the slandered dead. DEDICATED To the Lovers of Truth, Justice and the impartial administration of the Law. BY ZACH MONTGOMERY. Of Counsel for the State. COPYRIGHTED 1881, BY ZACH MONTGOMERY. ALFRED LEFEVRE. $+ TEL SCHRODER TRIAL. BOTTOM FACTS AND LEADING INCIDENTS CONNECTED WITH THE KILLING DR. ALFRED LeFHVRE, AND THE Trial and Disgraceful Acquittal of the Slayer. UNDOUBTED INNOCENCE OF THE DECEASED. THE VEILED WOMAN THAT THREATENED TO HAVE REVENGE, And How She Accomplished Her Threat. TRUE THEORY as to THE CAUSE of the KILLING, AS GATHERED FROM Evidence Adduced, Evidence Excluded and Evidence Suppressed. Why Mrs. Schroder was not called as a Witness. VALUABLE DISCOVERY in the LAW of EVIDENCE. An Entirely New, Convenient and Perfectly Safe Mode, of Proving by one’s Own Wife, a Criminal Intimacy (which never occurred) between Herself and her Imaginary Paramour, in order to justify the killing of the latter: without sub- jecting the dear creature to the mortifica- tion of a cross-examination, or to the perils of a prosecution for perjury. & The author’s object in publishing this pamphlet is not to villify the guilty living, but to vindicate the memory of the slandered dead. DEDICATED To the Lovers of Truth, Justice and the impartial administration of the Law. BY ZACH MONTGOMERY, Of Counsel for the Sta‘e. ) 6877 Bancroft Library a f= 2 i 2 fn 2 AN - A 2 G2 Me DR. ALFRED LE FEVRE —AND— ~zTIS SoA YHR. 2 > <> A NOTE OF EXPLANATION BY THE AUTHOR. The day before the commencement of the preliminary exami- nation of Edward F. Schroder on the charge of having murdered Dr. A. Le Fevre, I was told by Dr. W. E. Brooks, an intimate friend of the murdered man, that it was the wish of himself and other friends of the deceased to raise a fund for the purpose of retaining me as an attorney to assist in the prosecution of the murderer. My answer then and subsequently was to the effect that having retired from the practice of my profession for the purpose of laboring in the cause of educational reform; and hav- ing since my retirement repeatedly refused to accept retainers from old clients for any new business, I should not now make this an exception, but that Dr. Le Fevre had for many years been my dentist, my client, and my friend, that I believed him to have been foully murdered by an assassin who after killing him was seeking to destroy his reputation by falsely charging him with the seduction of his wife in order to paliate the murder, and that for these reasons, while I could not consent to prosecute the case for a fee, nevertheless, as the friend of the deceased, as the friend of his wronged and ruined family, and as the friend of civil soci- ety, I would cheerfully assist what I could toward bringing the murderer to the punishment which he deserved; preferring that, if the friends of the deceased had any money to contribute for coun- sel fees, they should give it to the widow and the orphans of the murdered man. It was thus that I became connected with the - prosecution of Edward F. Schroder. My motive, however, was not a mere revengeful wish to see a murderer suffer, but it was a | sincere desire to vindicate the good name of thie slandered dead ERP RT THE SCHRODER TRIAL. and to assist to the extent of my humble ability in protecting society against a repetition of similar deeds of blood in the future. am dAonn that this remarkable case has gone through the form of a trial, in which neither the jury nor the public have been per- mitted to learn the truth, but which has been made to serve as a sort of judicial sanction to what is generally regarded as a monstrous murder as well as an indorsement of the still more monstrous calumnies against the deceased man, I have resolved to give to the publicin pamphlet form, some very impor- tant facts which were not permitted to be proved upon the trial, coupling them at the same time with other important facts which were in evidence; and I honestly believe that no candid and im- partial reader can attentively peruse these facts, without reaching the conclusion, that Dr. Le Fevre who was slain upon the faith of the alleged private confessions of Schroder’s wife, was as inno- cent of the pretended crime for which he was slain as a child unborn. As the reading public are already familiar with all the leading facts, testified to by the various witnesses on the trial of the Schroder case, only such portions of said facts will be incorpora- ted in this pamphlet as are thought necessary to elucidate the relevancy and force of other facts not permitted to be introduced by the prosecution or willfully suppressed by the defense during said trial. WHO DR. LE FEVRE WAS. Dr. Alfred Le Fevre was born in France, but principally raised in the United States. At the time of his death he was about 45 years old; and left a widow, an American lady, and four small children. He had resided in Oakland for about sixteen years, where he had unremittingly followed his profession as a dentist. His professional reputation was inferior to none in the State. He counted amongst his regular customers many of the most respectable families, not only of Oakland but of San Francisco. He was almost constantly employed, professionally, from early morning until into the hours of night. He was seldom seen except at his dental chair, or in the bosom of his little family, to which he was devotedly attached. He was always temperate in his habits, and uniformally courteous and polite. He avoided dis- putes, and never sought relief in the Courts sq long as there was N THE SCHRODER TRIAL. 5 a possibility of a compromise. He was liberal to a fault, and never turned away a sufferer because of his or her inability to pay for his ser?ices. Had he been less liberal he might have left his family a magnificent fortune; as it was he left them scarcely above want. For the last seven years before his death, his almost con- stant assistant was a young lady—Miss Mary Agnue—of irre- proachable character, upon whose good name not a breath of suspicion was ever cast: a thing which would have been impos- sible had Dr. Le Fevre been a libertine. EDWARD F. SCHRODER. Edward F. Schroder is a young man, about 30 years of age, who, about eight years ago married the daughter of Dr. Horatio Stebbins, of San Francisco, the most prominent Unitarian min-. ister on the Pacific coast. At the time of the killing he had for several years been a bank clerk in the London and San Francisco Bank, but resided in Oakland. He was considerably addicted to playing cards and speculation in stocks, and during the last year or two had lost quite heavily for a man of slender means; a cir- cumstance which may in part account for his wife's disputing her dentist bill on the afternoon of the 11th of June, a fact, which, as we shall presently see, forms the initial point for the BLOODY DEED Which so speedily followed. About a quarter before five o’clock on the afternoon of July 26th Dr. Le Fevre was busily engaged in the filling of a tooth for Mrs. Keeney. His assistant was by side, and in one corner of the operating-room was seated Mrs. Spotts, the wife of Commodore Spotts, and the mother of Mrs. Keeney. In the parlor adjoining were a number of other ladies waiting to take their respective turns. The Doctor had accidentally chipped off a small piece of Mrs. Keeney’s tooth, whereupon (as Mrs. Spott’s testified) he ran his fingers hastily over the instruments, which lay in order upon the shelf attached to his dental chair; when, seemingly not finding the instrument he was looking for, he stepped hack into an adjoin- ing operating-room, as if to get the required instrument. But a moment after a pistol shot was heard in that direction, the Doctor came reeling back towards his dental chair, and Schroder pursu- ing him. Just as the Doctor was in the act of falling, Schroder, 6 THE SCHRODER TRIAL. discharged a second shot which powder-burnt the Doctor’s face; but the first shot having passed through the Doctor’s body, had done its work so completely that the second was unhecessary. The slayer was taken in custody by Dr. Brooks, who imme- diately turned him over to police officer Fields. He said in effect, both to Dr. Brooks and the officer, that Dr. Le Fevre had seduced his wife, and that «no man could seduce his wife and live.” After a full hearing of the case before Judge Yule in the Police Court, he was committed to jail, without bail, to await his trial for murder in the first degree. His counsel then obtained a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court, for the purpose of bail, made returnable before Hon. O. P. Evans, Judge of the Superior Court of San Francisco; who, after another searching investigation into all the facts of the case, again committed the prisoner without bail. An information charging the prisoner with murder was then filed in Judge Green's Court, Department No. 2 of the Superior Court of Alameda county, by Col. Gibson, the Distret Attorney. THE TRIAL Commenced on the 29th day of November and terminated by an acquittal on Monday, December 13th. The prosecution was con- ducted by Col. E. M. Gibson, the District Attorney, assisted by Mr. W. Whitmore and myself; and the defense by Mr. Hall Me- Allister, W. W. Foote, and A. A. Moore. In the progress of the trial not only was the killing clearly proved as above stated, but it was also in evidence that the defendant had twice purchased a ®pistol in San Francisco with which to do the deed; that he had declared that Dr. Le Fevre and himself could not live in the same town, and that he would just give him six weeks In which to leave. It was shown that on the day of the killing he attended to his ordinary dutiesein the bank through the day; that during the noon-recess he purchased the pistol with which he afterwards did the killing; returned with it to the bank, where he soon after was observed to be unusually tremulous; that he remained at the bank discharging his ordinary duties until the close of banking yy THE SCHRODER TRIAL. 1 hours, when he took the ferry-boat as usual for Oakland. At the Oakland wharf he met his wife and little girl, took the cars to Broadway station, and then in company with his said wife and child went immediately to Dr. Le Fevre’s office, where he shot and killed the Doctor as already described. A KEY TO THE BLOODY BUSINESS. THE VEILED LADY THAT QUARRELED WITH THE DENTIST— STARTLING FACTS RULED OUT. On the afternoon of the 11th of June, 1880, Mrs. Mary Beale, of Oakland, residing west side of Adeline street south of Third, visited the office of Dr. Le Fevre for the purpose of having a tooth extracted. =~ While there she witnessed a somewhat angry altercation about a bill for dentistry between Dr. Le Fevre and a lady whom Mrs. Beale did not at the time know. The lady was closely veiled, and was accompanied by a little girl that she called Alice, apparently between three and four years old. After an interchange of some angry words between the Doctor and the lady, the Doctor said to her: “Go home, and I will have my book-keeper attend to the matter.” The lady then turned to go, and as she passed out through the door leading to the hall, she said: “I will have revenge of you.” The Doctor not understanding her inquired what she had said; and on being told he replied: “ Oh, she is a shallow-minded thing anyhow!” The shooting of Dr. Le Fevre some six weeks afterwards brought to Mrs. Beale’s mind this occurrence, whereupon she mentioned it to a friend; and soon after Schroder’s examining trial, it came to the knowledge of officer Fuller, who called on Mrs. Beale, and obtained from her not only the above facts, but a full description of the general make, hight, dress, cloak, hat, veil, and little girl of the lady who had threatened vengeance on the Doctor. Shortly afterwards the officer conducted Mrs. Beale to the County Jail, where Mrs. Schroder, in company with other women, was visiting her husband; and Mrs. B. at once identified her by 8 THE SCHRODER TRIAL. her apparel—to the best of her belief—as the same woman whom she had heard disputing with Le Fevre on the afternoon of June 1th. The little girl of Mrs. Schroder also corresponded in general appearance with the one she had seen at Le Fevre's office, and was named Alice. On the trial of this case, Mrs. Beale was, by the prosecution, called to the witness stand, and testified in effect that the general make, hight, dress, cloak, hat, and veil worn by the lady she saw disputing with Dr. Le Fevre on the afternoon of June 11th corresponded with the make, hight, dress, cloak, hat and veil of Mrs. Schroder, whom she had since seen at the County Jail; and as far as she could judge Mrs. Schroder’s little girl Jooked like the same she had seen at Dr. Le Fevre’s office. But she said, as any perfectly honest witness doubtless would have said, that as the lady she saw at Dr. Le Fevre's office was closely veiled, she could not swear positively to her identity. "This evidence, however, was objected to by defendants counsel and ruled out by the Court, on various grounds, the chief of which was that we had not sufficiently identified Mrs. Schroder as the same person seen at Dr. Le Fevre’s office on the afternoon of June 11th. The matter of identity, however, would seem to most lawyers to be a questioq peculiarly for the jury, and not for the Court, inasmuch as it was purely a matter of fact, and not of law. Now it will be remembered that it was on the night of this very same June 11th that Dr. Le Fevre was charged with visit- ing Schroder’s house at about the hour of 9 o’clock, on which occasion it was alleged that he took his departure by way of the back door just as Schroder was entering at the front. As this night of June 11th seems to have been the starting point for a series of troubles which followed each other in quick succession, and ultimately culminated in the murder of Le Fevre and finally the disgraceful acquittal of the murderer, it may be well to scru- tinize somewhat closely the statements both of the defendant and his witnesses touching the events of said night and those which immediately followed. Schroder, who made himself a witness on his examining trial in the Police Court, testified that when ke entered the house on the night in question, the lights were still burning in the hall, the sitting-room, and the kitchen. ~ THE SCHRODER TRIAL. 9 There can scarcely be a doubt but that the VEILED WOMAN Who, on the afternoon of June 11th, quarreled with Dr. Le Fevre about his bill, and took her departure breathing a threat of ven- geance, was Mrs. Schroder; and there is just as little doubt but that she immediately set to work laying her plans to carry her threat into execution. It is not at all likely, however, that at that time she ever dreamed that she would either cause the Doctor to be murdered, or bring upon herself the everlasting dis- grace of having her name heralded forth to the world as that of an adulteress. All that she probably expected to accomplish, was to make her husband believe that Dr. Le Fevrehad in his absence, visited and insulted her; and thereby through her said husband, compel the Doctor to cancel his bill, rather than take the hazard of having his good name tarnished, and his professional business seriously interfered with. With this idea uppermost in her mind, it is not improbable that on his return home on that night, Schro- der was told that Dr. Le Fevre had just departed by way of the back door, as he (the husband) entered at the front, and it is not improbable that, in order to give coloring to this story, the ser- vant girl had acted the part of the escaping Doctor, by going out and violently closing the said back door behind her. It is a mat- ter of some uncertainty, but of no great importance, whether the wife, in reply to her husband’s first inquiry, said it was Dr. Le Fevre that had left the house; or whether, as testified to by Schro- der in the Police Court, she first said it was Sarah, and afterwards that it was Dr. Le Fevre, thereby exciting her husband’s jealousy while moving him to anger against the object of her spite. If she chose to do so, it was certainly not -difficult, for her to say with her lips “it was Sarah,” while proclaiming with her looks that “it was mot Sarah,” and this, after all, would have been the most effectual means of whetting both the jealousy and the indigna- tion of a suspicious husband. The probability is, as just suggested, that the mysterious stranger who departed by way of the back door on the night in question, was no other than the garrulous Sarah herself. This probability is greatly strengthened first, by the earli- ness of the hour—it being only nine o'clock at night—and as we shall presently see, the servant had not yet retired. Furthermore, EE eb : 10 THE SCHRODER TRIAL. as testified to by Schroder in the Police Court, it was after his usual hour for returning home, and consequently, it was a very unpropi- tious time for his wife’s paramour, if she had one. Secondly, Sarah was evidently still up and around when Schroder returned home, notwithstanding her evidence to the contrary, for she herself swears that on the night in question she remembers that she put out the light in the kitchen and secured everything for the might before retiring to bed, (see evidence, p. 310); and Schroder swore on the examining trial that on entering the house he picked up a goblet from the table and stepped into the kitchen to get a glass of water,” and that he noticed the gas was burning in the kitchen, (see evidence in Police Court, People vs. Schroder, p. 286). So it is very evident that Sarah had not yet gone to bed, nor finished all her kitchen duties when Schroder returned home. Hence the conclusion. is almost irresistible, that if anybody went out at the back door as Schroder entered at the front, it was Sarah herself. Just here, however, the question suggests itself, why did Mrs. Schroder on the said eventful night of June 11th confess to her husband, and the next day to both father and husband, the fact of her criminal intercourse with Dr. Le Fevre, if it be true that her only object was to spite the Doctor by blackmailing him to the tune of $83, the amount due for dentistry? My answer is that, notwithstanding the sworn testimony of both Schroder and Doctor Stebbins to the contrary, it is perfectly evident from their conduct as well as from the language they sometimes employed in giving their evidence that, neither on the night of June 11th "nor during the day of June 12th did Mrs. Schroder confess to any actual improper intimacy with Dr. Le Fevre, nor to anything more than an attempt on his part at seduction. That the false con- fessions of her own deep guilt were, subsequently, wrung from the wife by means of the most brutal violence, there can scarcely be a doubt; but that she made no such confessions as Schroder claims on the night of June 11th, is perfectly apparent from the following facts and circumstances, to wit:— First— Because if any such confessions had been made on that night, it was not in human nature for him the next morning to walk right past the office of the seducer, and go to San Francisco to consult with his wife's father as to what he should do. Second—Dr. Stebbins swears that when Schroder called on THE SCHRODER TRIAL. 11 him the next morning, after fhe alleged confession, he said, “ That Dr. Le Fevre was at his house last night and tried to seduce his wife.” (See evidence page 414). It is true that after Dr. Stebbins had finished testifying in chief he was again put upon the stand for the purpose, doubtless, of mending this testimony, when he said, “That Schroder further told him, on the occasion in question, that his wife had confessed a criminal intercourse with Le Fevre.” In the same connection, however, he tells us that he and Schroder on the same day went to Dr. Le Fevre’s office, and on meeting the Doctor, the very first words spoken between them was an inquiry by Dr. Stebbins, as to whether or not Le Fevre « Had a bill for dental work against Mrs. Schroder?” Further- more, Dr. Stebbins testifies that both he and Schroder went unarmed to Le Fevre's office having, of course, no thought of any serious trouble, such as injured fathers and husbands are likely to have when meeting the seducers of their wives and their daughters and the destroyers of their homes. Now, if at that time, and on that very day, Mrs. Schroder had made any such confession to her husband, as it is claimed she had made, and if she had repeated that confession in the presence of her father, is it possible to believe that both the father and the husband, on the very day of the awful discovery, would have been found ~ dogging at the heels of the seducer, not to kill him, not to cow- hide him, not to harm a hair of his head, but to demand with threats that the violated chastity of the daughter and wife should stand as a counter-claim against the cost of filling her teeth? In the name of common decency and for the honor of the human race, I protest that such was not the case. | When Dr. Stebbins and Schroder went to Le Fevre’s office haggling about his bill for dentistry and demanding a receipt in full without paying a cent, therefor, they could not have believed that they were negotiating with one whose horrid crime had covered them and their families with shame, and blasted their happiness forever. We may learn something of the value which Schroder himself set upon his supposed grievance against Dr. Le Fevre at the time of his visit to the doctor’s office on the 12th of June by reference to his own evidence as given in the Police Court. He says that 12 THE SCHRODER TRIAL. Dr. Stebbins asked “if we owed him (Le Fevre) anything? I said I owed him for the work that he had done; but, I said, I can’t pay it. I am not going to pay the man who wrongs my wife—pay him for doing it.” Further on, in reply to the ques- tion as to why he would not pay the dentist's bill, he says, « Be- cause the man could mot insult me and then ask me to pay him after he had insulted me.” (See p. 344). Is it not then clear, from Schroder’s own language, and still more clear from his acts, that up to the time of his visit to Le Fevre on the afternoon of June 12th he simply looked upon him- self as having been insulted by reason of the supposed insult offered to his wife, and that he had made up his mind to pocket the insult along with a receipted bill for his wife’s dentistry. Undoubtedly, such was his state of mind up to the time he visited Le Fevre’s office. When Dr. Stebbins, in his peculiarly dictatorial way, demanded of Le Fevre his account against Schroder for dentistry, Le Fevre hastily turned to the index, where he failed to find the name of Schroder because of its having been originally, by mistake, indexed as “Rhoda,” instead of Schroder; and, although Schro- der’s bill, which had been running for about two years, aggre- gated some $83, the doctor was unable, under the excitement of the moment, to find it. It was in evidence that Mr. J. L. Bromly was Le Fevre’s book-keeper, and, while leaving the index as the doctor had originally made it, he had taken the precaution to charge each item of dental service rendered to Mrs. Schroder thus: “ Rhoda or Schroder.” Had the book-keeper been present on the occasion in question there would have been no difficulty in pro- ducing Schroder’s account. But as it was, the doctor was unable to find the demanded account, whereupon—to use Schroder’s own language when on the witness stand in the Police Court—*it flashed upon me that he (Le Fevre) had kept no account; that he had kept my (his) wife simply coming there to inveigle her, and had kept no record of her visits.” (See Schroder’s evidence, p. 297). It was at the very same moment, too, that Dr. Stebbins, in view of Le Fevre’s embarrassment, seems to have jumped at the same conclusion and exclaimed “you have no account, sir. Have you been using your professional services to seduce my daugh- ter?” (See evidence, p. 436). THE SCHRODER TRIAL. 13 This is the first intimation to Le Fevre, according to Dr. Steb- bins’ own evidence to which he gave utterance, indicating that he suspected there had been any actual seduction of his daughter, and it is fair to presume that it was not till then that either he or Schroder really believed that Le Fevre was guilty of anything worse than offering an insult to Mrs. Schroder. But Le Fevre undoubtedly gave a receipt in full for all money due to him from Schroder for dentistry, without, in fact, having received a cent; and the question may perhaps be asked why he did this, if he was not conscious of guilt? My answer is, that there appear to have been two or three sufficient reasons, all of which are per- fectly consistent with his entire innocence. In the first place, he was confronted by two large, able-bodied men, one of whom was threatening to “blow his brains out” if he did not produce his account, which, owing to his embarrassment and the mistake in his index, he found it impossible to do. In the next place, he was very naturally appalled and overwhelmed by the dread of having the false but scandalous intimation go abroad, that under color of his profession as a dentist, he was playing the libertine with his patients; and he readily concluded that it would be better for him to bear the tax of $83, in the shape of black-mail, than to run the risk of seriously suffering both in his business and his reputation. There can be no doubt, likewise, that the em- barrassment of Dr. Le Fevre, in his vain efforts to find his account, followed as it was by his compliance with Dr. Stebbin’s demand for a receipt in full, did much to awake new suspicions in the breasts of both father and husband of Mrs. Schroder. Before going to Le Fevre’s office there was no thought of vio- lence, but now they begin to talk about blowing out the brains of the dentist, and there is no doubt but that both the father and husband of Mrs. Schroder had conceived serious misgivings as to whether she had not suppressed the very worst part of the truth. After brooding over the matter for a few days, Schroder starts anew to investigate the question of his wife's chastity. It was on July 3d, according to Sarah Gallagher’s testimony,—and she is supported in this by Schroder’s evidence in the Police Court— that we find Schroder for the first time making inquiries of said Sarah as to what she knows about Dr. Le Fevre. Now, this question will naturally present itself to every candid mind, to 14 THE SCHRODER TRIAL. wit: If Schroder’s wife, on the night of June 11th and on the day of June 12th, had confessed, first to himself, and then to her father in his presence, the fact of her guilty intimacy with Dr. Le Fevre, why is it that we find him three weeks later seeking this very same information of g hired servant? But not satisfied with the servant’s statements, made to him on July 3d, the fair inference is, that he next resorts to flogging his wife in order to ex- tort from her a confession of her suspected crime. For Dr. Steb- bins swears that, “ on Monday morning, the 5th of July, I came to Oakland and went to the house: My daughter came down stairs and I saw her countenance was all covered with extrava- sated blood.” Further on in his testimony he shows that this condition of his daughter’s face was the result of the beating she had received from her husband; and it was the very next day, July 6th, that Schroder, on Eighth street, in Oakland, chased a man with a pistol whom, he told his father-in-law, he had mis- taken for Le Fevre. Thus we find that Schroder’s interview with the servant girl concerning his wife’s chastity on July 3d, the unmerciful beating of his wife which placed her in the condition in which Dr. Stebbins found her July 5th, and the pistol hunt for Le Fevre on July 6th, are all events of startling proximity, in point of time, and can leave no reasonable doubt but that they bear a most intimate relation to each other. Now, just here, let us briefly recapitu- late the leading facts proved by defendant's own witnesses, which are utterly irreconcilable with the theory that Mrs. Schroder ever made to her husband any confession of criminal intimacy with Dr. Le Fevre either on the 11th or 12th of June: — First—The idea of such a confession on the night of the 11th of June is wholly irreconcilable with the fact of Schroder’s going to San Francisco the next morning, seeking satisfaction at the hands of Dr. Stebbins instead of seeking it in Oakland at the hands of the seducer? Second—=Such an idea is directly in conflict with the fact that Schroder said to Dr. Stebbins, on the morning of June 12th, that Dr. Le Fevre had tried to seduce his wife. Third——Had either Schroder or Dr. Stebbins believed that Mrs. Schroder had been actually seduced by Le Fevre, they would not while freshly smarting under the sense of so great a wrong have oly Vo px THE SCHRODER TRIAL. 15 sought consolation in a receipted bill for dentistry, (obtained by “ duress”), a> Dr. Stebbins says, was the case. Fourth—If Schroder, as early as June 11th, had the positive evidence in the shape of his own wife’s confession of her guilty cohabitation with Dr. Lefevre, why should he be pumping his servant girl in order to obtain evidence of the same fact as late as July 3d? ~~ In view of these and kindred facts, there cannot remain the shadow of a doubt, but that whatever confessions of guilty intimacy with Dr. Le Fevre were made by Mrs. Schroder, were made about the time and under the influence of the severe chas- tisement she received at the hands of her husband about the 5th day of July. And there can be as little doubt that it was upon the faith of these confessions thus extorted from his wife by means of his own brutal violence, that he afterwards shot and killed Dr. Le Fevre; and hence the absence of Mrs. Schroder from the witness stand during the trial of her husband for the murder of the man whom she had successfully sought to black-mail to the tune of her dentistry bill. She did not dream at the start that her little plot for revenge would result in the murder of an innocent man, and the utter and overwhelming ruin of whatever reputation or hopes of rep- utation she herself might have had. The failure to call defendant’s wife to the witness stand during his late trial, furnishes to every fair and intelligent mind the most conclusive proof of Le Fevre’s innocence; since it is both a legal and a common sense presumption, arising from the introduction of inferior evidence, that the superior evidence would, if produced, be adverse. It is true, that one of the able counsel for the defense undertook to explain to the jury why Mrs. Schroder was not brought into court as a witness; and here is his explanation. Mr. Hall McAllister in summing up, said :— Bancroft | {brary “ This lady has suffered enough, and those that are connected with her did not desire that she should be exposed at this public trial, and did not desire that she should be subjected to such a cross-examination as she would have been subjected to by one counsel upon the other side. That was a TRIAL AND AN ORDEAL Which neither her husband nor the counsel for her husband ——————— 16 THE SCHRODER TRIAL. desired her to go through, and you can understand, if you can appreciate the situation of this defendant, and the situation of this lady, how painful, how distressing, how cruel such an exhi- bition would have been on this occasion, and my client felt that rather than expose his wife, he would run the hazard of your verdict. And he felt truly and he felt justly, as a man would, to rather suffer even the extreme penalty of the law than to de- grade her; to expose his wife to the indignity which I think she would have been exposed to if subjected to the cross-examination of one of the counsel for the prosecution.” Comment on the above is deemed unnecessary, inasmuch as it is not at all probable that (with just thirteen exceptions) any body can be imposed upon by such an absurd and paltry pretext for keeping out of Court the only living witness on earth who really knew the truth or falsity of the one alleged fact relied upon by defendant for his acquittal. How it was possible for a lawyer who stands as high in his profession as does Mr. Hall McAllister to stoop so low as to advance such a proposition as the foregoing is incomprehensible. Of course, if defendant’s wife had been placed upon the witness stand and had testified to an im- proper intimacy with Dr. Le Fevre, she would not only have had to designate the times, places and circumstances—a very difficult thing to do without the danger of detection in cases where the story is fabricated—but she would also have been called upon to confront those who had heard her threat of vengeance against Dr. Le Fevre on the afternoon of that fatal June 11th, and might, perhaps, have been running the hazard of preparing material for a criminal prosecution against herself. As regards Sarah Gallagher's testimony concerning Dr. Le Fevre’s pretended confessions of improper intimacies with Schro- der’s wife, it seems to be so utterly and insanely absurd that it looks like an insult to ordinarily intelligent minds to attempt to discuss its value. Any one who knew Dr. Le Fevre knew that he was not an idiot, and that, therefore, if he had ever been guilty of improper conduct with Schroder’s wife he would not, on the very day when—as it is claimed—he was charged with the offense by her husband, go and make a confidant of that hus- band’s hired servant, whom he only knew from having seen her in his dental chair while he was doctoring and filling three of her teeth, This witness always seemed anxious to swear to the best THE SCHRODER TRIAL. 17 advantage. In one breath she swears that she always made appointments with Dr. Le Fevre for their future meetings, and then again she swears that they used not to make appointments. On one occasion she swears that Schroder said he would just give Le Fevre six weeks to leave town, then again she swears that she never heard Schroder make any threats. In one breath she states that on the day of the killing, July 26th, she went to Le Fevre’s office to inform him of - the danger he was in from Schro- der that afternoon,—she said to the doctor, “ You had better not be in the office this afternoon; but if you do, says I, keep the door locked, for fear he should walk in,” —then again, when asked if she had any. reason to believe that Schroder was going to molest the doctor, she said, “I had no reason for it.” In one breath Sarah swears that she was suspicious that if Mrs. Schro- der went down to meet her husband on the evening of July 26 “he might walk into the doctor’s office and,” as she expressed it, “ give the whole thing away;” but when asked if she had any ‘idea that Mrs. Schroder’s presence would induce Schroder to do so, she said emphatically, “ Not the slightest.” This witness’ whole testimony, from beginning to end, was a tissue of contradictions and inconsistencies, interlarded with ad- mitted falsehoods which she said she had told on various occasions "in order to successfully sustain the various characters in which she had attempted to act. She admitted that she had not com- municated to either Schroder or his counsel her wonderful story, until after Schroder had been twice committed to prison without bail, to await his trial for murder. For thisreason alone, her evidence was of no value to the defendant, because, when he shot Le Fevre, on the 26th of July, he could not have been crazy on account of information which he did not receive until many weeks after- wards. One of the most remarkable features of the defense in this case is, that it is claimed that Schroder killed Le Fevre in a fit of momentary insanity,—a thing that nobody could foresee—and yet, as we have seen, one of his principal wifnesses swears in effect, that she so far anticipated the precise time when Le Fevre would be in danger, that she urged him to either leave his office or lock his doors, in order to avoid the danger, It seems apparent that, either Sarah Gallagher perjures herself when on the witness nA Dr inp rm PR —— iE or are | i 18 THE SCHRODER TRIAL. stand she tells how, on the 26th day of July she anticipated the danger Le Fevre would be in, if Mrs. Schroder should go to meet her husband, or else Le Fevre’s taking off must have been the result of a horrid conspiracy, to which both his wife and his ser- vant were parties. These matters may, perhaps, yet furnish material for future inquiry. : There yet remains one important piece of evidence to be con- sidered, which of itself goes far to the establishment of Dr. Le Fevre’s innocence of any wrongful act towards Mrs. Schroder. I mean his dying statement. After he had been assured that he was in a dying condition, he was asked, who it was that shot him? and his reply was, Schroder; without any eause! The tes- timony of such a witness, at such a time, when standing as he - was upon the brink of eternity, would out-weigh the giddy and self - contradictory gabblings of a whole world full of Sarah Gallaghers. THEORY OF THE DEFENSE. Mr. McAllister, in his opening statement to the jury, indicating his line of defense, claimed: First, that the killing was justifiable on the ground that Dr. Le Fevre had been guilty of adultery with Schroder’s wife, which fact he announced himself prepared to prove; and Secondly, that (at the time of performing this perfectly justifi- able act) the defendant was insane, and wholly irresponsible for his conduct. SOME REMARKABLE LAW. An entirely new, convenient, and perfectly safe mode of proving, by one’s own wife, an adulterous intercourse (which never occurred), between herself and her imagi- nary paramour, in order to justify the killing of the latter without subjecting the dear creature to the mortification of a cross-examination, or to the perils of a prosecution for perjury. Following upon the heels of Mr. McAllister’s opening statement, the learned counsel for the defendant then called to the witness ‘stand the Rev. Horatio Stebbins—Schroder’s father-in-law—and began to interrogate him concerning his daughter’s confessions to her husband, touching her alleged criminal intimacy with Dr. Le THE SCHRODER TRIAL. : 19 Fevre. To this the prosecution objected, on the ground that the evidence sought to be elicited was the very worst sort of hear- say, and wholly incompetent. But the Court over-ruled the objection, and broadly proclaimed the doctrine that, not only was it ‘proper to show that defendant’s wife had made confessions to him of adulterous intercourse with Le Fevre, by way of showing the effect which such confessions had produced upon defendant’s mind; but that these confessions were competent evidence tending to prove the fact of adultery itself; it was thus that the confessions of Mrs. Schroder—which it seems impossible to doubt had been ex- torted from her under pressure of the most insufferable violence, inflicted by Schroder—were in a court of law, permitted to do the double office of blackening the memory of an innocently-murdered man, and to screen the guilty murderer from his richly merited doom. Of course every lawyer knows, (nor were the Court's instructions contrary to the proposition) that if deceased had even been guilty of the heinous crime attributed to him, it would have furnished no justification, nor even palliation for taking his life, especially after his offense had been condoned for a consideration. But, inasmuch as the jurymen were appealed to by counsel and expected to acquit the defendant in defiance of their oaths, in con- sequence of the supposed criminality of the murdered man, they surely should have been furnished at least with some shadow of evidence—not wholly antagonistic both to the universally recog- nized principles of law, and the plainest dictates of common sense —on which to rest such an acquittal. Thinking that, perhaps the Honorable Judge had not duly considered the full scope and bearing of the above seemingly novel rule of evidence, and that he might, at all events, set the matter right in his instructions to the jury, we prepared and asked his Honor to instruct the jury “that outside unsworn statements of defendant's wife, made either to her husband alone, or to her husband and father, touching the alleged fact of adultery between herself and Dr. Le Fevre, is not legal evidence showing or tending to show that any such adultery was in fact committed, and the jury must not consider them for any such purpose.” : But this instruction the Court refused to give. In anticipa- tion, however, of the Court’s refusal to give said instruction, in view of the aforesaid ruling, we asked his Honor in the event of TFA Ar 20 ; THE SCHRODER TRIAL. such refusal to charge the jury that «So far as the unsworn out- side statements of defendant’s wife, made either to her husband or father, may tend to prove the fact of adultery with Dr. Le Fevre, such evidence is far inferior to her sworn testimony mn open court; and the fact that defendant has chosen to rely upon* such inferior evidence in this case (it being in his power to pro- duce the superior evidence), raises the legal presumption that such superior evidence would be adverse to defendant if pro- duced.” But this instruction was also refused. We also asked his Honor to give the following, to wit:— «Tt is a presumption of law that higher evidence would be adverse from inferior being produced.” This instruction being copied from the California Code his Honor could not, of course, very well refuse to give, but he seemed to take good care in the same breath to slaughter it by charging the jury in these words, to wit: — « There is a presumption that higher evidence, capable of being produced by the defendant, would be adverse from inferior evi- dence actually produced; but this rule does not apply to the non- production as a witness in this case of the wife of the defendant.” It was in perfect keeping with the letter and spirit of the qualifying clause of this instruction that the Court, on the sug- gestion of opposing counsel, objected to the prosecution’s even discussing before the jury the question of the little weight which the outside confessions of defendant’s wife should have in deter- mining their verdict, in view of the fact that these confessions were far inferior to her sworn testimony in open court, of which defendant might have availed himself had he chosen so to do. As regards the motives of the Honorable Judge before whom this case was tried I have nothing to say. It is only God Almighty who can correctly read the human heart and with per- fect justice decide upon questions of human motive. He alone can tell with infallible certainty when the head is at fault and when the heart is to blame. So that, as this seems to be one of the cases where silence is charity, I shall leave his Honor in the hands of the Almighty, who gave him his being as a man, and of the dear people, who gave him his office as a Judge. This case was given to the jury, under the instructions of the Court, at 6 o'clock, P. M,, of Friday, December 10th; and at 4 THE SCHRODER TRIAL. 21 o'clock, P. M., of Monday, December 13th, they returned into court with a verdict of “ NOT GUILTY.” As to the exact process of reasoning whereby the jury reached this wise conclusion, it seems that the public are not to,be per- mitted to know,—if we are to judge from the following item clipped from the Tribune Extra, which was issued almost imme- diately after the rendering of the verdict. The “Extra” says: — “Various jurymen were immediately interviewed, but no definite information could be received from them, so anxious were they to leave the scene of the trial. One of them said hastily: ‘None of us will tell what occurred in the Jury-room. We took a solemn oath not to reveal our deliberations.”” Inasmuch as men of the most exalted worth are generally noted for their extreme modesty, and, consequently their great desire to hide from the world their most meritorious deeds, of course, the fair presumption is that, whatever did occur in the Jury-room on the occasion in question, would be highly credit- able to the aforesaid jurymen if they would only consent to allow the public to know what it was! The Tribune Extra adds, that as Schroder “left the court-room the prisoners at the jail windows cheered lustily.” This cheering by the prisoners was undoubtedly the most fitting and in every way the most natural and appropriate event connected with the Schroder trial from beginning to end. Why should not the guilty rejoice when the just mourn? Why should not Crime’s bloody banner proudly float aloft from its very topmost masthead, when the flag of justice ignominiously trails in the mire? Nobody can blame the prisoners for cheering the jury’s verdict in the Schroder case. : The following are the names of the twelve jurors who had the distinguished honor of rendering the above verdict, to wit: J. E. Patterson, W. H. Hamilton, G. D. Atkinson, Benedix Peterson, Ralph Balmforth, Chris. Bauer, Howard Overacker, L. Whiting, J. J. Pensam, J. T. Latimer, J. H. Hardman, Jno, Gunn. #2=" The author of this pamphlet has earnestly endeavored to state the facts with entire accuracy, but should any mistake be dis- covered to the injury of any one he will take it as a favor to be informed of it, so that he can make the necessary correction. a I warn mas RR ii 5 PROSPECTUS ~——O0F THE— FAMILY'S DEFENDER. \ Ce CE An Independent, Non-Partisan, Non-Sectarian, Monthly Magazine and Educational Review. —_—e FE a~—— This Periodical will be devoted to Miscellaneous topics, but most es- pecially to an exposure of the crying evils resulting from the unjust, extravagant and anti-parental features of the public school system now prevailing throughout the United States, and to the advocacy of ap- propriate remedies therefor. NECESSITY FOR THIS MAGAZINE. The worthy President of the California State University, in a letter to the projector of this Magazine, while lamenting the downfall of pa- rental authority in this country;—without either asserting or denying that our educational system isin great part responsible for tht evil— says :— “ There can be no doubt that the gradual impairment and loss of pa- rental authority and influence is one of the most serious and momentous evils which beset the American civilization, it undermines the very foundations of the family—the essential unit of society.” Dr. Joseph Le Conte, a leading Professor of the University, writ- ing on the same subject, emphatically expresses his views, both as to said evil and its cause, as follows: — “I fully concur with you in your view that any education which weak- qs the Jamily tie, strikes at the very foundation of society, and no amount of good in other directions can atone for this greatest of all evils. 1 fully concur with you also vn your opposition to compulsory State Educa- tion. This certainly strikes at the integrity of the family, for it makes children ‘the wards of the State.’ I fully believe, also, that private schools, each parent choosing his own, i a better education, all things considered, than any public school system.” The Alta California, in its leading editorial of January 31st, 1879, with great force of truth, after denominating the public school system of this State “OUR ANACONDA,” said that if we are to “judge this system by its apparent fruits, we shall have to pronounce 'it not only a melan- cholly, but a most disastrous failure,” and that ¢