Evansville daily journal. (Evansville, Ind.) 1863-1866, 1865-09-22

TIE HoucrDE AT HExDEEsos.-A
friend at Henderson sends rs the fol
lowing communication clipped from the
Henderson Meas, in relation to the late
homicide in saloon in that city. This
communication puts an entirely differ
ent phase on the affair. The fact that q
had been in the Federal army was
sufficient incentive to Hon. L. W. Pow
ell to defend his murderer:
t Gonmuniested.l
Ma. EDIToR:-On last Monday, Sept
IL, 1865, about o'clock, A. NJ, mas
named VIM. Harris, Ia discharged sol
disr from the Federal army stepped
into the restaurant of Mr. Applegaie,
called for drink Of liquor, drank it.
and, in the language of an eyewitness,
laid down on the counter, either five or
ten cents The proprietor of the house
demanded that be either pay fifteen
cents for the drink or leave the house.
Harris did neither. He was second,
ami perhaps q third time, ordered TO
pay or leave the house At this june
turs yqmng man in Apologize EN-
2loT, as bar-keeper, named Henry Ko-
kernot, picked up pistol, that was ~
ing on a shelf under the counter, walk
ed round into the room aad ordered
Harris out of doors, at the same time
laying bold Of him as if TO put him out
By force Harris either showed him
back or struck him and knocked him
back. Mr.. W. w. Caslin, then caught
Harris by one arm and whirled him
about facing the door and near to it,
with his back TO Kokernot, when he
(Kokernot) cred his pistol with deadly
aim a. Harris, the ball taking effect in
the back of his head, killing him almost
instantly. Kokernot fed out at the
back door leaving the house. He was
arrested the same evening and lodged
in the county Jail until the next day. A
Co-oners inquest was held over the
dead body the same night. The YER
dict of the Jury have not seen.
On Tuesday forenoon an examinations
or primary trial was had at the Court
House, Justices Walker and Lockett on
the bench. Hon L. w. Powell aud L.
w. traitor, Esq, were counsel for the
AIGn6Fu-hBE commandments uOk ucAuk
represented By counsel. After hearing
the evidence, which was in accordance
with the above statement of facts, and
the arguments of defendants counsel,
the Court coneurred in the opinion that
the homicide was committed in self-de-
Tense, and set the prisoner at liberty.
Whether the Court did right or wrong
is not for me to say The gentlemen
composing it are both honorable men
and above suspicion for corruption
though in my opinion, they betrayed q
want of legal aeumen. A storm Of in
dignation has, however, arisen in this
community in consequence OF the decis.
ion, and the manner of the trial
1t was certainly the duty of the Court,
i (whether they knew it or not, to have
supplied the place Of the absent County
Attorney by pro tenn appointed for the
occasion-particular when the Court
saw two able lawyers employed by the
prisoner. a decent respect for the vim
dicatiou of the majesty of the Law, should
have dictated that act of duty on the
part of the Court IL il had been done
certain absent Witnesses would have been
obtained before the trial was entered
into. A fair and full investigation would
have shown that the first wrongs were
done to the deceased man. He was sold
liquor when he had already too much
and then an endeavor to extort more
money from him for il than the lag al.
lowed to be charged. For that selling
they are liable, and had they succeeded
in getting the money they demanded,
they would have been amenable to the
law for that also In the difficulty, then
the accused made the first breach of tbs
law
now propose TO show that though nc
attorney appeared for the Common
wealth, that her case ao6s most cleaTls
made out To do which was simply 20
show that a man had been killed, and
who killed him. No one who heard the
evidence, has the slightest misgiving al
to the killing, or as to who did the kill
ing 1t then devolved on the defense to
prove that the killing was necessary to
sare the sife of the party killing, or his
body from great personal injury.
The law says:
''To justify the killing, it was certainly
necessary that the defendent should have
believed, and had reasonable grounds 10
believe, that the deceased was then about
to kill him, or inaict on him great bod
| lily harm, and that he had no other ap
parent means of protection or Escape
| l Metcalfe, 376
! The fact that the man killed was ia
the hands Of a police officer-a brother
in-law to the one who killed him-and
that his back was to him also, and him
in motion toward the door, preelndes the
idea that Kokernot's life was in the
least danger, or his body visible to any
injury whatever from the deceased. he
had no arms Of any kind about him
not even q pocket knife
This statement is made in order to
disabuse the public mind, aud to arrest
an effort to abuse it, in reference to this
most fragrant outrage. / have paid no
attention to irrelevant matter detailed
by witnesses, Eor to alleged contradictory
stories told by the deceased to different
persons on the last fa.al day OF his life;
for, if true, it afforded not even the
slightest pretext for shooting him down
like rabid dog in the streets.
Stress is laid on the fact that Harris
was killed in the house, and that the ten
ant was in the act of putting him out.
Be it so, II was public house, so H.
censed BY law, and any man had right
to be there during business hours, if he
demeaned himself with reasonable deco
rum. The law allows the use Of necessa-
ry force to eject an intruder from q
domicil. Harris was not an intruder
nor was it necessary to kill him to put
him out. VERBUM SAT.