The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1865-08-27
qalarT-rouETH nAy.

qziaTT-rouETH hky.
The Judge Advocate presented the follow
ing argument, on the objections and propo-
sition made Yesterday By the defense:
ARGugENT:
The rules Of evidence IS to character are
too well known 70 admit Of much cOntro-
versy. R L
The prisoner may give evidence Of his
general good, but nOtevidsaee Of particular
acts Of good conduct, unless those actshsve
some relstion 70, or connection with Che
facts charged, and tend 10 disprove the facts
alleged against the prisoner.
2. The witness must know The general
character Of The prisoner in the nsighbor.
hood whsrs he resides, or where be has re-
sided. m s5s
3. The reputation Of which Che witness
may speak, is confined 10 q tins anterior to
the commission Of the acts FOR which he is
being tried. Unless the witness can speak
Of his antecedeht character, he is not al
lowed to speak a all, because Subsequent
character or reputatiOn-whether for or
against the witnsss, may Be manufactured
This witness undertakes 70 speak Of the
CHANGER Of no prisoner in Putnam county,
and the Question eontemplaies proving by
rsputstion, acts subsequent to 1851. II he
conld prove such acts BY reputation at all,
he must 70 back Of 1861 for il.
As 10 the proposition Of he aeoassd %
PROVE that the parties he slew we're hunting
him down and threatening mis- liis--if he
can prove that b. anybody vho knows that
Il Is 90, I shall not object 10 i. What ] do
object to is the attempt to prove that osrsain
threats were msde, and that Ferguson was
hunted, BY proving Ferguson's reputation.
think an not misunderstood. | DO not
object to the prisoner proving threats against
his life If he can prove il BY any one VINO
ever heard those tbrests made. DO not
4 object to his proving that the men be
slew hunted him and sought his life, by
any one who even saw these parties hunt
ing him. do object to his proving such
faeis by common report or secOnd'handsdj
and especially do object to proving sueh
iaets under the pretenee Of proving the
prisoners general character.
Threats or attempts to take the prisoners
life are fsets tending to justify his acts, and
he may prove them If he can. But he must
prove them just as any other facts arc to be
preven-by somebody who knows il. Not
that RorgasOn had character or reputs
ton for being Threatened and hunted. The
very statement Of the proposition illustrates
It's absurdity.
AZ 10 his proving his acts % protecting
Union men from the depfedaiions Of his CO.
rsbols--if that may be soae At sll, il Won d
have to be done like any other matter Of rep
utation and be confined 60 time, anterior
10 the acts for which be is prosecuted, which
takes it back 70 1861. y ihis il 70 bep proven
by reputation, il Tnust come in underaii She
rules pertaining to reputation.
Il Is oftsn told In novels that distinguished
I highwaymen and cut-tbroais would rob the
dead and give 10 the poor. Bulwer gives
'sParI Clifford" character like this-and
sometimes We have illustrations OF such
characters on ths siage. But have never.
seen in the law Reports where man was
allowed 10 prove that he protected the peas
ant 70 excuse his robbing the peer nor have
ever heard the proposition made before in
r any Court Of Justice.
The arguments Of ;he prosecution Is. Fur
0 guson prevented somsbody from robbing
Y some Union man. Therefore he did not rob
, Wright's store IN 1861, and other parties A.
b Ter that's and he did not Kin the various
= parties whom be Is proven 10 have killed.
Establish such a rule IS the defense con-
tends for, and yeu license murder. An a
: man has to do is 10 set sAoat q report thE-
. another man has threatened his life, (snd
7. we ell know hoW rapidly such stories grow,
aud in two Eeel,s he would be ready 10 kill
ct pleasure. Ard without proving that any
> threat had ever been made, prove the Tepu-
tation of having been threatened, and 90
acquit.
I Aud the Commission announced the FOL.
lowing decision: ra7
e The evidence sought % be ELECTED by this
! question Of counsel Cor the accused is iFrel.
evant and would moi constitute defense,
{ e. il would disprove, or tend 70 disproye,
4 any Of she acts charged asainst tie prs
4 oner. Nor would il be a defense TO the
r charge Of being guerrilla 70 shoE that he
q did particular acts Of kindness, or tha. be
i afforded protscsion 70 persons Of any pastie-
e ulsr political scatimeptso OF views.
d tttis no defense 20 re crime Of murder q
n prove that the slsyerdid not Kill the neigh.
% Dor Of che slain man.
q Il being proven that stole BE horse
4 how 1ocs the fact that hs ala not steal O
! hosse, or even that he prevented D from
g stealing Els harse, Tend 10 disproye the fac
as that A did steal BIS horse?
- Does the ssci that ihsstrouy man armed
I, y spared tame members Of faniiy, disproy'
=. he tact thst the head Ct that family va
az aurderedg
Doea The fact that soule sores IN she coun
:. !, w we're not robbed, aisprovs the fact tia
- other stores were robbed Or would the fac
- thai some stores were not robbed excuse o
Jaseiy NE reAhiug Of shoas that wer
- foepeaf Some men in the nsirhborhoo
70 Sere not murdered, bui does that fact dis
prove The killing Of men Who we're mur
l- dered, or in any way excuse or nitrate N
I'd oHcnte Of murder
p The answer % these questions isohriop.l
ID. aesa6ve. The kind Of evidence here sops,
We thiak sclesrly illustrated.
~ But il considering The proposition sf,e,
dv. wards subniasd BY counsel Cor tie dss.n.
ass ant asd the rsplicstisn BY The Juses Aav
,s,r esss thsrelo. ws Ind an issue saisea, sliEhtl
ed diIsreat fros thss Involved n she oriciu
question. The scsnsed proposes e pro
aEe Gsat be molsssea 80 one % sceesiht q D
Union sentiments. That hs may DO II
de- can prove thar negative. Batss & reisrs
tiine subsequent % the commiuipao 81 So
ae- Of he acts charged, be mast show i
The showing what psrs his motives.
He pFopesqa a. prove thst be only ma
nsm var uroa thtss wne made war upon hiI
rom Tia he may also dos lut he muss do It
en- proving sAs fact that those be msde y
sad HFon hfstnAaa var upon him.
.a fa