Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1853-06-03

Wit. If didn't bite the defendant9
Law. Answer my question, sir; did you not bite
the defendant?
Wit. No, sir, ever didn't.
Law Now, sir, put you upon your guard. and
on the oath which you have taken, ask you if you
didn't have the defendants finger in your mouth
Wit. Yes sir, had his finger in my mouth:
Law Well, sir, if you didn't bite the defendant
will you please tell the jury what you were doing
with his finger in your mouth?
Wit. / jest took it in my mouth to keep him from
putting it in eyes.
Law.-(gettng angry.) 1 ask you again, sir, if
you did not bite the defendants finger while you
held it in your mouth Z!
Wit. Opening his mouth to its fullest extent and
pointing to his tocthless gums.) How horse gwine
to get fat on OATS ceptin he eat them-how man
gwine to bite, ceptin he got teeth ?
Law. (Very much confused) Well, sir, did you
not have pistol?
Wit. No, sir.
Law. Did you not have fire arms!
Law. Did not son,e person shoot!
Wit. Yes, sir, shot
Law. What you shot ?-well, sir, ifyou had no
fire arms, will you please tell what it was you
fired off!
Wit. ever didn't fire off anything.
Law. What, sir, have you not just said it was
you that fired
Wit No, sir,-I said shot
Law. You seem to be very particular, sir, and to
draw very nice distinctions; you didn't fire you say
but you shot-be so good as to inform the jury
what it was you shot.
Wit. | shot holster.
Law. Well, sir how did you happen to tell the
jury that you didn't have pistol or fire arms, and
now, you say you shot holster, horseman's pis-
tol
Wit ever didn't say shot off horser,an's
pistol
Law. Then pray SIR what did you say
Wit. l said shot off holster.
Law You shot off holster-will you please
stick to that, sir!
Wit Yes, sir, shot off holster.
Law (Wi;h nod to the jury-as much as to
say, I'll fix him now) WE'LL sir as YOU seem to be
such great stckler for words, and to discriminate
nicely, will you please to enlighten the court and
jury, by condescending to explain to them the differ
ence between horseman's pistol and holster.
Wit. Yes sir; one is the horse, and the other
the stable.
Law. How, sir-I don't understand you please
to dispense with your figures of speech, and tell US
in plain language the difference between a horse
mans pistol and holster: we want no lodging
here; we intend to have plain and direct answer
to the question.
Wit. Yes sir,-a horseman's pistol is about six
teen inches long-it has stock lock, ramrod and a
BARREL the stock is made of wood and the barrel of
iron, with hole in it. and when you put powder
and ball in it, and pull the trigger, its beound to
60 off.
Law (Turning red in the face.) You are very
explicit sir please goon and describe to holster,
and see if your great discriminating powers will
enable you tot point out any difference.
Wit. Yes, sir, as said before, one is the horse
and the other the stable so the pistol is the horse
and the holster is leather to keep the horse
in and ever didn't lear of one shooting, except
mine.
At this point the counsel become very indignant,
and amid the litter Of the court jury and bar, order
ed the witness to stand aside. But as he was re-
turning, he stopped by the court, to explain
how it was his holster would shoot
Wit Why you see, had q pOp-gun in the hol-
ster, and when put wad in end and then a
wad in the other, and then pushed with ramrod it
was beound to 90 off.
Court. But why did you put your pop gun in a
holster.
Wit. (Looking at defendants counsel) Case II
then answers the same purpose as pistol, for I've
seen folks who didn't seem to know the difference
between fire arms and a leather case.
| Joe Brown then left the Court house, and John
Began duly convicted; for the court charged
the jury, that holster with pop-gun in it, wa,
not pistol, such deadly weapon justified the
defendant in striking in selfdefence and the cour
further charged that witness had right TO take de-
fendant's finger in his mouth, provided he did no
bite but only held on to it with sufficient grip t.
prevent the defendant from putting it into his eyes
The court further charged that, though it was yer,
wrong to sport with the nfrmtes of others, yet th
language used by the witness not sufficient pro
vocation to justify the assault; for the defendan
was indeed very crooked specimen of humanity
and looked very much as though he had swallowe,
cradle rocker and been nursed a-straddle of bar
rel and if the cause assigned by the witness, 70
his appearance, was true, the court hoped that
= would be a warning to mothers in future not +
wean their children too soon, if they did, to tr,
and prevent them from acquiring the perniciou
habit of sucking their toes.
! SCoTCH MoRALs.-I In the British House of Com
mons the 22nd ult., the bill for regulating license
for public houses in Scotland occasioned discussion
with awful statements. That country was emphati
caly called " drunken one it's statistics of potatio
and intoxication being matchless. The Lord Advo
cate proclaimed that the evil against which the bill
was directed " the National sin of Scotland, si
which overshadowed all other social evils of the coun
try" Mr. Hume said that he would readily vote 70
the introduction of the Maine Liquor law-which ex
: cited great laughter Mr.. Henry Drummond al
frmed that, every Saturday night thirty thousand me
got drunk in Glasgow, and lay in perfect state of in
sensibiity until Monday morning. We might add
large or small proportion of the fair SEX Ii is sal
that Scottish preacher designated alcohol as Satan
? blood
Oo- Among the articles which the French hav
sent to this country is styled arm. chair ft
parlor use, formed of fine iron wires wsyen togeths
spirally.