Veteran charged with murder convicted of lesser crime--Only two ballots taken by jury--Sentenced to Chester Penitentiary--He thanks Judge Higbee for the Impartial Trial accorded him--Pity for old man and his relatives.

D. Gates Seybold, who was today convicted of manslaughter.

Gates Seybold has been found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to the penitentiary at Chester.

The trial of the old veteran, charged with the murder of John Brady, the railroad bridge carpenter, has been followed very closely by a host of spectators since a start was made to empanel the jury a week ago last Monday. Readers of the Journal are familiar with the details of the case, but a very brief outline will call to mind the facts brought out in the trial.

Brief resume of the case

John Brady lived at No. 332 North Fourth St. Gates Seybold boarded in the house immediately south of that number with Mrs. Murphy. A paved alley about 8 feet wide divided the 2 houses. A few days before the fatal affray Seybold and Brady all but came to blows over the proprietorship or control of a little dog that made itself objectionable to some by reason of a sore on its back. On the evening of July 16, 1903, Brady was sitting on his front porch after his day's work was over reading the Journal. Seybold had occasion to go to Broadway to get a bucket of milk, and he passed through Brady's gate, thus shortening his journey by less than 20 feet. Brady prohibited him using the gate and told him not to return that way. Seybold did return, and stopped in front of Brady's gate, where he set down his bucket of milk inside Brady's gateway, took a dagger from his hip pocket, replaced the sheath in his pocket, picked up his bucket, and asked Brady whether he was ready, saying he was going through his gate. The evidence showed that Seybold stepped into the Brady yard, that Brady, who had been reading the paper, got up off his porch, took a stop towards Seybold and struck him in the face. He followed up this blow with another that missed Seybold and then kicked him in the abdomen. Witnesses say that Seybold then began stabbing at Brady-and continued stabbing him, fighting him back down the alley way between the 2 houses until Brady fell, mortally wounded. Witnesses also testified to Seybold's declaring immediately after the stabbing that he said he would do it, and he had; that he guessed he had given him enough, and that he, Brady would not bother him, Seybold, any more. This was the case for the state, who also proved that the dagger with which the stabbing had been done was purchased only a few days before the stabbing. The defense was based on self-defense, and irresponsibility by reason of epilepsy. They claimed that Seybold did not stab Brady until the latter had struck him in the face with some hard substance sufficient to cut a gash to the bone beneath the left eye, and after he had also been kicking violently in the abdomen, Seybold testified that he did not know what he was doing after he had stabbed once or twice at Brady until sometime after the trouble was over. The defense proved that Seybold was an epileptic and produced expert testimony to show that an epileptic was not responsible for his actions for some time after an attack. The defense also called Mrs. Murphy, with whom Seybold boarded, to show that he had had an attack of epilepsy a little while before he had gone for the milk.

The sentence

Seybold's punishment under the law, as fixed by Judge Higbee in his sentence pronounced this morning, is imprisonment in the penitentiary at Chester for not less than 1 year or for life, subject to the action of the board of pardons. According to the statutes, murder is the unlawful killing of a human being in the peace of the people with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied. The unlawful killing may be perpetrated by poisoning, striking, starving, drowning, stabbing, shooting, or by any other of the various forms or means by which human nature may be overcome and death thereby occasioned. Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. Malice shall be implied when no considerable provocation appears/or when all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice, express or implied and without any mixture of deliberation whatever. It must be voluntary, upon a sudden heat of passion caused by a provocation apparently sufficient to make the passion irresistible, or involuntary in the commission of an unlawful act, or a lawful act without due caution or circumspection.

A hard fought case

The case was fought hard from beginning to end. Attorneys Vandeventer & Woods had the management of the case for the state, although State's Attorney Sheets was present during the entire trial, examined a few of the jurors, and made the opening speech, one of three-quarters of an hour duration. Upon Mr. Woods devolved the duty of examining all but a very few of the witnesses, and he produced the testimony upon which the verdict was based. He, very magnanimously, refrained from speaking to the jury, holding that it was the duty of the state's attorney to do so, and much of the success of the prosecution is due to his work at the table, and in examining the witnesses. Attorney W.L. Vandeventer closed the argument for the state-and it was a masterful effort, brim full of logic and law, and reasoning. He spoke for 3 hours and 3-quarters before supper-from 2:15 o'clock until 6 o'clock, and from 7:30 o'clock until 8:15. It was a great argument, one of Mr. Vandeventer's very best, and he is counted among those at the head of the Adams County bar. It was a great effort-and it aided in convicting Seybold. The court room was crowded when he spoke, and he held all enthralled. Mr. Vandeventer's long and able effort drew upon his strength and he went home sick last night. He is still ill in bed today.

Put up great defense

Attorneys Wilson & Wall were complimented upon the magnificent defense that they put up on behalf of the old man. It was apparent to the general public that there was a strong case against Seybold, but the general public is not the jury, and it was to the 12 men that these young attorneys argued, and argued so well that a conviction for manslaughter only was returned. Attorney John Wall spoke first for Seybold. He argued in the ablest possible manner for 2 hours and 20 minutes, and he was complimented again and again by Mr. Vandeventer for the splendid marshaling of incidents and facts on behalf of the old man. Mr. Wilson spoke for 3 hours and 3-quarters, devoting himself principally to the law in the case, reading report after report and case after case, showing all the could possibly be shown for Seybold. He followed his colleague well and ably, and his speech showed minute preparation.

Quick work by the jury

The case went to the jury last night about 9 o'clock. The verdict had been determined on by 11 o'clock, and all 12 men voted to convict for manslaughter. The jury then went to bed at the Lamar Hotel, and returned its verdict in court this morning. When the jury disagreed at the previous trial it stood 9 for conviction and 3 for acquittal. The jury was discharged by the court after the verdict had been submitted.

Seybold opposed motion for new trial

Immediately upon hearing the verdict, Seybold's attorney's made a motion for a new trial. Shortly after this the old man, his lawyers and family had a consultation. The result of it was that the motion for a new trial was withdrawn. Seybold unhesitatingly told his lawyers that he did not wish to have a new trial; he wished to let the verdict stand, stating that if a new trial should be given and the case heard again, some of his witnesses might not be present, and the verdict might be different.

Judge Higbee called the old man to the bar, requesting him to be seated, if he so desired, but the defendant bravely kept his feet. The court declared that he had done his duty to the best of his ability, and had given Seybold as fair a trial as it was in his power to give. Acting upon the statutes, the court said it was his duty to sentence him to the penitentiary at Chester, and he did so.

Defendant's calm bearing

The bearing of the defendant all through the trial has been surprisingly calm, cool and collected. He never winced when damaging testimony was given against him, not a muscle in his face twitched when the verdict of the jury was read; he made not a move when sentence was pronounced. The old man's calm bearing, his gentlemanly demeanor and patience throughout the trying moments of the trial occasioned much sympathy in his behalf. When the verdict of the jury had been given in and sentence pronounced, expressions of sympathy were heard throughout the court room, and many stepped forward to shake his hand and wish him an early pardon. Seybold shook hands with the judge and thanked him for the impartial hearing he had been accorded. He expressed himself as perfectly satisfied with the work that his attorneys had done in his behalf, and declared that none others could have done more, and his family echoed this sentiment. The pity and sympathy expressed for Seybold was extended by all to his daughter, Mrs. T.P. Hooper, of Barry, and his son J.W. Seybold, also of Barry. They, and Mr. Hooper, the son-in-law, sat by him throughout the long hearing, encouraging him by word and presence. Mrs. Hooper could not keep back the tears when the verdict was given and judgment pronounced, and the hearts of many melted towards her in her sorrow. After sentence had been pronounced Seybold went up and spoke to James Brady, the father of the dead man, and other relatives, saying that he was sorry for what had happened, but that he had not intended to take John Brady's life. He affirmed that he did not know what he was doing at the time of the stabbing. Mrs. Hooper, too expressed her sympathy personally to Mrs. Brady, the widow, and the latter touchingly spoke to the former of her (Mrs. Hooper's) own grief. Both these poor women whose names are untarnished and whose faces speak of pure and tender hearts, consoled each other, and expressed their mutual sympathy. There is no malice in their hearts, as they both stated, and their portion of sorrow is heavy to bear. Seybold's parting with his friends was also touching. He gave many of them some small memento of himself-to one a note book, to another a picture, to a third a small trinket. He declared to a Journal reporter that he had been accorded a fair hearing, but he felt the loss of one of his witnesses, Pearl Starr. He complimented his attorneys, and declared emphatically that he did not know what he did when he stabbed Brady. He said he first came to Quincy over 50 years ago; that he worked in the old fanning mill factory that stood where the city hall now stands, and that he had worked at his trade of a carpenter in the construction of the Soldiers' Home. He thanked the reporter for the fair treatment that had been accorded him in the columns of The Journal, which he said, he had read since it was first published, and to which he was now a subscriber. Monroe Wilson, a brother-n-law of John Brady, also complimented this paper upon its fairness.

A just and upright Judge

All the attorneys, the defendant and the family joined in expressions of esteem for the fair and impartial manner in which Judge Higbee had presided throughout the trial. His decisions were prompt and right; he was as expeditious as the seriousness of the charge and the nature of the case allowed. He did his work well and every one who followed the trial joins in paying this just compliment to a just man.

Great cost of the case

The Seybold case has been an expensive one for Adams County. When all the bills are paid it will be seen that $1,000 will not suffice to meet the expenses of the trial. Court adjourned for the term after judgment was passed upon Seybold this morning. Seybold will be taken to Chester the first part of next week.

{Taken from the Quincy Daily Journal, Feb. 9, 1905}