The Ebensburg Alleghanian. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1865-1871, 1866-01-11


| up to him, put his hand upon him." as
Chambers testifes, Hand with that Robin
son struck hum two or three times, and In
the scufae Gore got away" The parties
got out on the pavement, where the prisO-
ner attempted to strike Holmes, and fell.
Holmes then, 10 defence, drew pistol,
when his assailant desisted, and he soon
afterwards left.
Holmes, it appears, went and made
complaint against Robinson to William
Orr, the Burgess, who, as he testi6es, is
sued warrant against Robinson for re-
sisting Holmes in the discharge of his
duty as an officer and about IL o'clock,
he further testifes he met Holmes and
Oster on the street, going, as they said,
to arrest Gore and Robinson, and he told
them they were at Fend's saloon. Gore
and Robinson had, in the meantime, as
the evidence shows, after the transaction
az the 5arber's shop, gone to Patton's shop
and provided themselves with clubs, ut
tering threats against Holmes, and after
wards to Mr.. Swank's hardware store,
where Gore purchased a revolver, and
there loaded two of the barrels himself,
and got Mr.. Swank to load the others.
as it would seem, to Fend's cellar There
is some discrepancy, as might reasonably
be expected, in the testimony of the wit
nesses, detailing what there occurred, at
the time of the shooting. You will re-
concile the statements of the witnesses, if
you can, and from all the evidence upon
this part of the case, ascertain if you can
the true facts Of the transaction Gore
and Robinson had gone In, and were eat
ing oysters when the policemen entered.
Holmes, according to all the witnesses,
approached Robinson to arrest him, or to
arrest both, as it was differently under
stood, and differently stated, by the wit
nesses. Violent opposition to being ar
rested vas manifested, particularly by
Robinson, who was soon observed to be in
a scuf1e or conflict with Holmes, In which
Gore approached and participated. Very
soon afterwards, Gore, the prisoner, was
seen TO step back four to six feet, and
point pistol at the breast Of Holmes,
and fire. Holmes bent or stopped down,
or staggered, struck the stove, knocking
it down, passed up the steps, and through
the entry to the back part of Fend's pre-
misses, where Dr.. Lowman, when called,
September, when he died.
The first general inquiry in the cause,
is, was the death of Holmes caused by
the shot fred BY this prisoner This
question: of Fact, which is here contro-
yerted, lies at the very foundation of the
case. 1t Is met at the very threshold of
inquiry, aud must be determined at the
very outset. IT TIE death was not, and
is not plainly shown to have been, the re-
suit of the shot, there was no homicide
the body of the crime has not been pro-
ven ; and nobody can be convicted. And
it is for the Commonwealth to prove this
material fact beyond reasonable doubt.
Ii it has been so proven, the remaining
general inquiry is, what is the prisoners
crime
Was the death of Holmes the result or
consequence of the wound inflicted by the
prisoner! DR.. Lowman, who was called |
to see Holmes Immediately after he was
shot, attended him during his illness, and |
who made the poSt-naortent examination of |
the body, expresses the belief that it was |
and DIR. Sheridan, who witnessed the ex- |
animation, is of the same opinion. He |
noticed the facts in the condition of the |
body, mentioned by DIR. Lowman, and |
upon which he based his opinion, and |
states that it was his belief at the time, |
aud still is, that they we're results of the
wound, and, together: the cause OF death.
On the part of the prisoner, DIR. Hart
well and DR.. A. Yeagley, were called and
examined, expressing opinions on some
questions In the science of medicine or
surgery somewhat at variance with the
opinions of the professional
witnesses of the Commonwealth but it
is observable that neither of them has
ventured TO express the opinion that the
death did result from any other cause
than the conditions proven by DIR. Low
man and DR.. Sheridan to exist, and which
is traced by them to the pistol shot.
Neither of them saw the body examined.
The question is not, what might, possibly, |
have occasioned the death, but what did
Go it. DR.. Yeagley also testi6es, or re-
marks, in calling your attention to the
whole evidence on this subject, that with
in some short space of time, he had treat
ed the deceased for syphilis, and that
shortly before his death he had intermit-
tent fever. DIR. Lowman, however, states
that on his examination of the body, he
found no evidence of secondary syphilis,
and that the diseased condition of the or
gans found to exist, and which together
caused the death, could not have been
produced by recent attack of fever and
ague. s
) But, we will not elaborate this point.
We merely call your attention to the promi-
nenk facts In evidence bearing I1pon it.