Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1865-11-16
end hi servant. Theydetailed.

COIilltClSu Will TIC btH Sidi y, oiu
astonished their auditors with a
relation Of the cool proceedings of
the robbery. One of them, accor-
ding to the master of the house,
sat down at the piano, while his
companions were RECALLING them
selves with wine and spirits in the
drawing room, and played several
airs with the rapidity and finish |
of professed artist. "You are
surprised" said this accomplished
burglar. still wearing his mask, tol
the astonishad host. ''Let me
tell you, old fellow; that | am a
better educated man than you are, i
"a proposition which, under the
circumstances, no one ventured to
dispute.
ssFm bowed" whispered arough
voice behind me, elf it was that
ere chap in the dock as played on
the piannyr'.
AS l glanced at the prisoners
sunburnt hands, hardened with
the toll Of twenty years. felt the
| Justice of his remark, which was
made by man in working dress
in the crowd. But this circum-
stance told but slightly in favor
of the prisoner, as it was clearly
shown that there were five or six
men engaged in the robbery. The
task still remained of identifying
the individual in the dock as one
of them, and this the inmates of
the house ali failed to do. All the
robbers had been SO carefully
masked, that the countenance of
not one of them was seen for an
instant. So far as the case had
gone, there was not shadow OF
evidence aginst the prisoner.
The next witness produced was
the police officer, who had met the
two men under very suspicious
circumstances, early in the morn
ing of the robbery. He stated
that the one who carried the bundle
and who had fired a pistol at him
on his attempting to examine its
contents, was the prisoner at the
bar. This witness was most Sc
vcrely cross-exanined by the
: prisoners counsel, an advocate of
great experience and skill, but
, without effect. The constable
maintained that he had not the
slightest doubt as to the prisoners
. identity; ard the bricklayer, who
was next examined, and who bao
, attempted to seize the supposed
robbers, spoke with equal conf
, dence, and his testimony was
Iequally mistaken by the prison
. Ier's advocate. The whole CASE
against the man at the bar rested
: upon the veracity of these tw'
: witnesses. No other evidences
> was adduced which either directly
| or indirectly affected him.
The case for the prosecution be
e ing closed, the counsel for thu
: prisoner shortly stated the natur
!. of the defence he was about to Of
i fer to the jury. 1t was simply, il
: legal parIance, an alibi. He as
n sured the jury, that the two wit
; nesses upon whose testimony alon
y they were called upon to conVic
r the prisoner, were totally mista
t ken as to the identity of the man
!, He hoped to prove that the me
n ment when the constable met tn
t two suspected persons on the road
e his client was at home and in bed
: in the town of D, at the dis
is lance of five or six miles from TIA
1, spot. He reminded the jury OF
e the fatal mistakes which hav
IS been made in courts of justice
g with regard to the identity of IN
dividuals; and after dwelling cal
It Mostly on the previous unblemishe,
r character of the prisoner. conclud
It ed by expressing confident hop
e that he would be acquitted Of
|. the heavy charge preferred 6
,r gainst him.
n 1t has been remarked that a
l. abb is either the very best or th
d very worst defence that can b
le presented to Il jury. If they b.
IS lieve in it, it is of course concll
A. sive of the prisoners innocence
S If they do not, his conviction
J. almost sure to follow; because til
70 attempt to impose upon them b
$. means of false defence as the
rs considerit to be, most MATERIAL
re strengthens the presumption OF h
f guilt. The result of this tris