Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-02-27

TRIAL OF A. X. Mills FOR SHooTIH'
l. DIR. Low.-Afer some delay In obtain
: ing a jury, owing to many of thos
I. summoned having formed opinions o.
the subject, the Ease of A. X. Mills
: charged with ~maliciously shooting Dr
= E. S. Low, was taken up before Judg
Hunter, in the criminal court, at tire
O'Clock yesterday afternoon. Attorne!
General Wallace, assisted by John De
; laney and E. A. Beecher, Esqs., ap-
L peared for the prosecution, and ID. e
Meyers and j. w. WestcOtt, Esqs., fol
the defense. DR.. Low was put upon the
0 stand, and stated that at half-past eighl
o'clock on the evening of August s, 1866
after the other boarders had taken theft
suppers, he sat down to his. Theoniy per-
sons in the diningroom were Mrs. Mills
aud Mrs. Molen, when the defendant,
Mr.. Mills, entered from a side door. BE
either had on slippers, or he was in his
stockings. He approached the witness
and presented two pistols, n in each
hand, saying, "Get out of my
house - ne then fired instantly, the ball
passed through the right arm and en-
tered the lungs. Instantly on shooting,
Mills ran off. DIR. LOWS right arm was
in a sling, being crippled, but under the
impulse of the occurrence he threw 1t
up. The arm was resting on the table
at the time, throwing his back a little
toward the door. The occurrence took
place in the house kept by Mrs. Mills,
the wife of the accused, which is situadT
on Poplar street, between Main and
Second streets, next to the enginehouse.
Witness was not eating his supper, but
was waiting for it. Dr.. Low was cross
examined by Mr.. Myers, when he stated
that he was a practicing physician had
resided in Memphis twelve or fifteen
years came here from New Orleans,
where he had resided three years; before
then he lived in New York, where all
his previous life had been passed he
had been some little timein Chicago, but
never made that place his home; had
been there on several short visits; once
he may have remained as long a time as
three months that was in 1856. Attor-
ney-G General Wallace objected to this
course Of examination there vas moth
ing showing that the questions put were
relevant to the case.a Mr.. Myers claimed
the right to show whether the past con-
duct OF the witness was such as to entitle
him to the credence of the jury. The
cross-examinationproceeded The shoot
ing occurred in the house occupied by
Mrs. Mills, who, the witness understood,
the defendants wife he called the
house Mrs. Mills because she carried it
on, and she, he understood, contracted
and paid the debts ne didnOt know posi-
lively that the business was hers he
boarded there, but slept there only for a
while, afterward taking his meals there,
but sleeping there only occasionally he
was not sleeping there when the shoot
ing was done; Mrs. Mills occupies two
adjoining houses when Mills had fired
at witness, he arose, pushed back his
chair and drew a pistol he had in his
pocket; he did not have the pistol in his
hand when he threw it up, or cut Of his
pocket at all until after the firing he
directly afterward saw Mills in the ad-
house, aud fired his pistol at him
fired emily once, certainly not twice ;
did not carry q pistol habitually,
but his profession sometimes taking him
out at night, he did so occasionally he
had borrowed a pistol of Capt. Pease,
which he had declined to return when
asked for, because he had heard that
Mills wanted it and had threatened his
life Mills had been away but had re
turned probably a month before the
he was sometimes abusive,
wearing at the servants in the
presence of the boarders. Witness had
been family physician to Mills family :
before boarding there, and had attended :
IN Mills himself, bat for the last six {
months they had been unfriendly and S
rad not spoken with each other. The :
addressed a number of questions $
o witness, which were objected to on the
art Of the prosecution, and generally, S
uled out 10y the judge as i~rrelavent. )
They explained that they were prepared
o show that circumstances had existed 3
which had induced their client to believe =
hat DIR. Low was depriving him 8
f his property and his wife,
nd the questions were put with a
Jew TO establishing what had led to this /
and how the miRd of their I
lient had been so affected in conse- C
ueuce, hat he was not in a condition, n
{ the time ofthe shooting, to be respon- a
ible for his acts. The prosecution de T.
hat in objecting to the course of \
he counsel for the defense, they were L
actuated by any apprehension as to
THAT woGId be the nature Of the replies,
ut by the fact that a prosecution for a t.
ivorce wa proceeding in another court, u
nd they could not consent that this trial y
lould be used to obtain testimony TO il
dvance a particular side in another. b
he testimony of DIR. Low was not .
nded whom our report closed. :,
JOHN a DTgETNSON-One of the most u