The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1866-11-13

3 3 d /
nianded without Bail. IS
There was some little delay yester-
day morning occasioned by the late
arrival Of the Counsel for the Defence
The testimony taken yesterday was
mainly TO prove the stage of the river,
the rate of the current, and the prob
ability of body drowned at Owens
boro on the 18th, floating to this city |
blythe morning Of the 18th. Several
witnesses for the defence from some
cause failed to appear. of a .sla
DR.. Armistead and DR.. Magennis
testified that body would rise and
float within a period from two or
three to eight days, and DR.. Magennis
further testified that, under certain
circumstances, a body would float
from the time the person was drowned.
Capt. Henry Scott, Capt Drinkwa-
ter, and the River Editor of the
JOURNAL, testified as to the shape OF
the river from the 18th to the 18th Of
July, the rate Of the current and the
character Of the river about Owens
bofo. iiaH Y p .
Gen. G. Woodson testified as to the
height of the deceased, He thought
he was fully six feet, if not more.
He, also, testified that there were
many persons residing and doing bus
mess in this city, about the 18th of
July, who were well acquainted with
Lieut.. Hampton.
i With these the defence rested, and
the State having no further evidence
to introduce, the testimony here
closed, and the counsel commenced to
sum upthe evidence. 80 80 g
Gov Baker suggested that the rule
should be fixed in. reference to the
order of argument, and submitted to
the Court, that the statute giving the
counsel for the defence, applied only
to final trials. ssofg'o % o4a3 %
Col Crockett took a different view
of the rule. - ~. II
4 g The Court decided that in prelim-
mary examinations the rule did not
apply, and that the prosecution was
entitled to the opening and closing
argument. 1d 1ipas 3af -Hnwtf
w. p. Iiargrave opened the argu-
; ment on part Of the State, reviewing
! the egidence--dilating at length upon
the various theoriessset up by the
] prosecution and defence. He spoke
3 for about an hour, when Court took a
! recess until II o'clock. eas
] In the afternoon he was followed by
) the counsel for the defense in the fol
e lowing order: AFRO Dyer, j. Young
d Brown and Col. Crockett. Ad
o The court room was crowded, and
q the closest attention was given to the
: argument of counsel. ''ts
a The theory of the defence was tina
k 1st-The corpus dc lect or whole ma
ture of the offence was not proven
In other words, it was not proven tina
9 Hampton was dead. 2nd-The iden
st tity of the prisoners with the arm
T. was not established. 3d-That th'
! Court had no jurisdiction--the muir
, der, if murder had been committed
{. having been done in Kentucky. ~
s. To establish the first part OF tn
- theory, they argued that the bod
r, could not in the nature Of things hav
L reached here within the time inter
81 yening between the murder of Hamp
3 ton and the time the body, identife
81 as his, was found at the wharf. Tha
the description of the length an
a general appearance Of che body foun
", I did not correspond with that 9
r, Hampton. That there was q discreT
VI ancy between the description of tn
ID clothing as described by Mrs. HamE
e. ton and that proven to have bee
n found on the body. 2'aa pa inani
I'd Mrs Hampton swore that her hus
I'd band did not wear an'undershirt or
,g cravat, when the evidence was ths
to the body found had both. On th
as second point they contend that it ha
g. not been proven that the prisoner ha
ne been convicted in any way with til
'e. abduction and murder; that the al
he missions Of the old man amounted
nothing, as he had all the time avoy
a. ed his innocence, and all his declam'
ne tons must be SO taken, if any pa
as was taken. These propositions fl
On the defence was argued at great lengt
a. NJ LLlu n i n " ID