The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1866-03-22
MILITARY TRIAL.
FOO Nr1N U Ep.1


CITADEL, Msrchi14, 1864.
The Commission met at 1890 A. n, and con-
t;pued the trial of James Crawford Keys, his son,
Robert Keys, and Elisha ByruE,.
The Judge Advocate stated that confrmatory
information had Been received as to the capture
of one Of the horses referred to in the proceedings
Of thu last preceding day, nnd steps taken to pro-
cure-tie testimony of the persons in whose pos
session ths same was found; thatas some time
may s.lapse before such testimony can be submit
) led, ke desired to renew the suggestion made at
the last meeting as to suspending the prosecution
and taking testimony for the defense.
Ths Commission decided that while it does not
wish the counsel for the accused to bind them
sslvesto goon with their testimony ut present.
SeEsigi it be any convenience either 10 counsel OF
witnasscs. the Commission are now ready ana
Wiling to hear their testimony at once, while
waiting for the production of the evidence men-
toned by the Judge Advocate !; otherwise the
consnission will stand adjourned until Wednesday
next,. the DIST instant.
Tsereupon ahe accused, through their counsel,
anrisuuced that they desired to proceed with
portion Of the defense before the final close Of the
pros scution, wih special reference to the eonye-
nietce Of the witnesses.
Eaiss ]. Earle. witness for the defense, de-
possd that he had known Warren Howell 1.-THE
witness for the prosecution) from his boyhood ;
thSsshe hasta bad general character that he (wit-
,nessl would not believe him on oath; that W. P.
Brown fthe witness for the prosecntor) had said
to him the day after the murder, 'that he did not
think he knew any of the parties (who committed
the murder, but did not want to talk much about
it;a that Mr. Holland had questioned him (Brownl
on thesdbject.
plsstioned By accused Was Mr.. Holland here as
: q yYitners, and if SO, what has become of him
The Judge Advocate objected to the question as
Irrelevant, and the objection was sustained by the
Commission.
The witness further deposed that the Rev. Mr..
Murray preached at Shiloh. twelve miles from An
SON, on the SGh OF October, and left there at
.sclock; that Crawford Keys is distinguished for
5 anisbility and benevolence; that Robert Keys
and Elisha Byrum are without reproach
Being cross-eSaminsd, witness said he had heard
Howell called . thief and Iiarsby his neighbors-
The witness further deposed that he made no
( particular Efforts to remember Browns words,
which he fvitness) had testifedsto; thatit was
more than amonth after they were spoken, when
hia, (witncss' attention was called to them that
he Ind NO reason to think, on the occasion re-
ferred to, that Brown knew the parties who com
mitfed the murder
willis A. Dickins61,s q witness for the defense
cave testimony similar toythat given to him in the
ease: Of F.ss. Stowers to the effect that he met
warren Howell the day after the murder, near
holland s store that Howell said he had seen the
aarty of murderers, but had not recognized any OF
them.
0asstoa b. accused If you had any subsequent
conversation with Howell relative o.the murder,
say when and where is-.ook place, and what was
;said:
The fudge Advocate objected to the question,
on the ground that no foundation had been laid
for contradicting HowelPa testimony by anything
said at the time and place referred to in the ques-
tion that such foundation unst be not merely a
general negative made by the witness without re-
gard TO Time and place, but remarks made at .
speDi6ed time and place.
The objection was oyerruled, and the witness
stated that on another occasion Howell said to him,
s.as God issmy judge, did not know single man
in the rarty g. 4 of murderers ;n) that he denied
I. recognizing the man who ordered him into his
house that Howelrs general charactcri is bud, and
that iie would not believe him on oath that his
(1itness,l knoElsdge Of Howell's character is de-
rived from personal knowledge.
March is, 1866.
A. o. Norris, vitness for the defense, deposed
that hs would not believe Warren Howell on oath {;
that the. character Of al the accused is good.
The accused, through his counsel, offered i'll
evidence deposition of Lemuel Keys (colorcd,) y
witness for the prosecution.
The Judge Advocate objected to the deposition
baipg introduced, on the ground that the attention
az the witness LemusI, had been called to the
fact Of puch . deposition being made, and,
therefore, he could not be eoptradicted by such
deposition.
The objection vas overrulod.
W The Judge Advocate objected to the introduc-
tion Of the deposition on the ground that it did
not have stamp, nor was evidence offered that
the;rsYenuei dues had been paid
The Commission decided that ..whether the aiR-
dayis requires o stamp or not, IT may now be
stamped"
The deposition having been stamped in Court,
vas then iatroduced as evidence to the point that
lem did know that he was. taken to Columbia as
q witness
RE, Thomson, . witness for the Defense do,
posed that he would not believe Warren Howell on
iisoath.
Jsptho r. Wilson, a witness for the defense, de.
.r,nsad .erf the Mednes6av after the rnnrce.