The weekly Panola star. [volume] (Panola, Miss.) 1857-1881, 1866-06-30
fm ihF fHfHH sHf Hiiffa1
lieflslaus N me Illrh fnmH NJ
iffefs and lppfals,

wv wy fffN WIZ WY
Niles aipa
Uplnfoa n lho emfl delivered Wy
tllff iuthf lIandy
Tho plalhile ~ efrf Nas indielfd
and editlds,t Nv lhe Ciyuii Court Il
llankin Cutniy fr The lafmny N
iwo bales NJ euilm
The evidence on which The am.
yitli1n wha founded "A IN substanct
~ fallows Joseph lludaHll testified,
that almh I I N ~ o'clmk M night
he was informed thtrc was 4 noise NJ
The GIN house M HE fathers plants.
iion, aud be supposed amue one was
stealing cotton, that hc made haste
aud proceeded ~ the gin hmse. aud
pursued q wagon aud overlook II
aheut hall y mile ffum the gin huusc,
and Il contained iwo bales of cotton,
which he identified "a his fathers
On his oyertaking The wagon, the
persons who we're wilh u fed, aud he
saw no person. On The nest day, he
went 20 llmndon, Ia Gnd the owner
Of the wagon, but could mol and on
the following day, accompanied by
Colonel Jayne, he went 10 Jackson,
taking the wagon with them, aud
they droveup before \. Lemly's door,
and Mr.. Lemly acknowledged that
The wagon was his, and that the ac-
cuscd was hired BY him as his driver
to do hauling, 'nd that he paid him
by the month or week. The accused
was then present, and stated that, rs
n WAGNER he had been hired to 20
to Rankin county, and haul sonlc
cotton 10 jackson; that the man who
hired him had paid him sl5 and
promised to pay him $40 more when
the hauling was completed; that he
started with his wagon, and after
proceeding about five or six miles in
the direction Of Brandon, as directed,
the white man who had hired him
met him aud told him he could not
yet the cotton.he originally intended
him to haul, and that the accused
would have TO go TO Brandon and
haul other cotton; that the accused,
with another negro, came ON TO Bran.
don, where they stayed until late a,
night, and with the white man and
two other negroes who got on the
wagon, proceeded to Mr.. Hudnall''
gin house, but just before they
reached there, the wagon made con
siderable noise, and the white mar
cursed the accused and told him moi
to make so much noise; that the ac'
cused then suspected for the first tint
that the object of the white man wa
10 steal, and he told the white maj
he had better drive the wagon him
self, and that the accused gave up th,
driving to him--that the accused wa
mad and did not help to load th,
wagon, but was near by; that h
did not know the white mans name
but had often seen him in jackson
and knew his face. Witness Hud
nall stated that the cotton was take
from his fathers gin house in Rankil
county, and was worth 5000 per bale
Jayne corroborated the statement
of Lcmly and the accused, as d,
tailed by Hudnall, and this wns a
the evidence for the State.
Two witnesses for the accused tei
titled that they had known him e
many years, and that he had alwa,
sustained a good character for hoI
esty. And here the evidence for Il
defence was closed.
The FIRST error assigned is that u
declarations Of Lemly, as stated |
: the witness Hudnall, were improper
allowed TO go TO the jury.
This evidence went 10 the jul
without objection on the part of d
accused, and therefore It's admissi,
cannot be assigned for error. B
4 beside : this, Il was immaterial, sin
4 the substance Of il was admitted
/ the statement made by the accuse'
and having been made In bis presen
and not denied, il must be taken
n adopted by him.
. The second error assigned is, III
!. the Court granted the first instru
! tions asked by the State, which is
"a these words:
,f "That the confession Of the 4
II cuscd of bis guilt, when confirm
> by circumstances, becomes the high,
/, evidence Of his guilt; and the ju
u have the right TO receive n portion
m the confession and reject other ~
:. tions, II the attending circumstan'
70 in their opinion warrant such rcj'
:, ton"
!. This instruction is Objectionable
10 two respects. lst. II assumes u
!" the statements made by the accus
a. were Q confession Of his guilt
:. went TO the jury as the opinion.
:. the Court that the statements h
- that effect in law. This was an
ror. Il was for the jury TO det
mine, upon consideration Of his wh
a statements, whether or not u
nj showed guilt, aud that was . mat
n! entirely for their own dctcrminati
"A lie was entitled to the benefit Of
'ee he said al the time, if anythi
a tending 10 bis exculpation, and q
IT. was 10 be considered by the jury
M connection with such facts stated
nd him as tended 10 cxculpatc him,
ey from the whole, the jury should h
X. been left free 20 determine whethe
nj showed his guilt or not. End. II
mic structs the jury a. 10 the grade
HI. weight Of the assumed confess
pre This was erroneous. II was the d
u's of the Court 10 admit the evids
ers and tell the jury that Il was con
nix tent testimony 70 bc considered
I a A "a r.