The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1866-03-15

posed that when he heard voice calling shachel,
he said to- her. "Mind, the old man (mcaning
Crawford Keys viii he after you" that she camo
back and said it was not the old man called, but
Major Keys; that he did not see Elisha Byrum on
the morning Of the 9Th October; that the moon
was shining Brightly when the party rode in;
th he went into the house for tho stable key that
morning and saw Crawford Keys sitting by the
fire in his room. The witness stated further tasat
he had not noticed, when feeding the horses,
whether they had been ridden, as the stable was
very dark; that he did not know whether they had
been taken out of the stable that night; that he
had not noticed when they entered t4a yard that
morning whether they had been ridden8ard
Warren Howell, being cross-sxamined by the
accused, said that on his on
the 18th January, IN case of Showers, he had
sworn the night was dark, and that the moon was
not shining that he had sworn he did not rccog-
nize the person calling himself Jones; that he did
not recollect swearing that ones was not of the
party that went to the ferry; that he (witness)
did not say that the party returned in half hour
after Jones passed that he sworc he did not re-
cognize the voice of the person who ordered him
into the house that he had given already satisfac-
tory reasons for his Having sworn to these facts;
that on January Goth he swore ho recognized the
accused, and also Showers and Peter Keys; that
he then gave, as his reason for his contradictory
statements, his fear for his ife that he still AYERS
what he stated on the 10th of January.
The witness having been asked, upon his cross
examination on the goth of January, if he had not
sworn that he had; not told certain persons that
he had not recognized the men who went to the
ferry that night the Judge Advocate stated "that
no evidence having been given in the present case
as having conversation with the parties named in
the question, the question is irrelevant"
The Commission gave its decision as follows:
s..What the witness swore at the former trial may
be introducedto contradict what he says now but
it cannot be introduced for the purpose fproying
that he swore to facts then concerning which he is
not now inquired of, in order;to lay the founda-
ton for contradiction If there has been any mis-
understanding (and that there has been the Com
mission believe, from the statements of Counsel J
the witness cannot be inquired of as to the facts
referred to-"
The witness further stated that he had not told
certain persons that he did mot recognize the men
in the party, but that he told them he didn't know
whether he could or not; he had sworn, both
that he had not recognized the person who order
ed him into his house on the night of October 9Th,
and that he had recognized him as Peter Keys
that he had sworn on Friday, 10Th January, that
he did not recognize Jones. The witness made
other admissions as to contradictions between his
evidence given in this trial and on the 20th Janua-
ry and. that given by him on the 18th January
Being re-examined by the Judge Advocate, the
witness said that on his examination On the 10Th
January on Showers case, "h;s mind was very
much tore up and bothered: the reason was he
hated to come in against his ncighbor men," that
he had then denied recognition of the parties be-
cause he knew how he would go, if he went home
that he had no i-feclings against the accused and
never did have any; that he had changed ms
testimony ON the second day of his examination
because she thought it was nothing but justice
and it was his place to do it, that he had told
certain persons, who questioned him, that he did
not know whether or not he recognized The party )
that he thought it was not his place to tell what he
knew about it.