The daily gazette., 1874-12-02
FIRST :. EDITION
The Murder Trial.
Continued from first paee. II
f rF +5.A

Continued from first pade. II } : N
not be necessary, but in a. secluded life,
exposed to the incursioIis OF every foot
pad, and property is destitute OF .protec-
tiou.. The state OF society requires the
keeping of some means OF defense. He
called the attention OF the jury to the
fact that the law prevented his wife
from testifying the intent with which
Woodward picked up that gun. He thenj
took up and commented on Miss Std
hams testimony. He then asked the
jury to consider as fact that there was
either protect his own property or snHer |
himself to be despoiled. There is no |
presumption of guilty intent to be rails
cd from any ordinary attempt to protect
himself and his property, IL he had
had guilty intent he would have put it |
into execution Instantly; but he did not.
He walked openly in the sunlight: III
Miss Stidham could see him, then these
boys could have seen him. IT they did
not see him, then it appears to me thai
it was because they held hun in con-
tempt and not care if he was coming.
There is more told by the professed in
OF Woodward than they were aware Of.
If they had been boys taking by stealth,
starting at every rustling leaf, they
would have watched forfW Woodwayh, AND
seeing him from the moment, he lett the
house they would have fed. No, they
did not care for him if they did see him.
Again, ii they did sec him, could they
have not seen the gun2 Now, il THAT
man had come to that tree unarmed and
| asked them down, they would have look
ed at him with pity, 'andlifi he hadsnot
conducted himself with great circum-
| spection and respect to these young gen.
| tlemen, he would probably have gotten
| a pair Of black eyes and bloody nose
| for disturbing these boys who had con-
descended to come upon his place torob
him. Again, beg youto inquire wheth-
| er these boys cared for Woodward ut all
or not. There was boy in the top OF
that tree with keen eyes,. used to suoh
reconnoisances. Do you suppose these
boys then were not aware of his comihgp
| He then proceeded to sketch the testi-
mony of the boys that Woodward came
to the tree in haste, that the boys con-
sequently scattered in different direcs
tions. One man is on one side OF the
! conflict silent; he had siY adversaries,
I Eve of them swearing to take vengeance
on him to-day for an occurrences to v hich
I they were parties. They came here and
do make statements, but the defence will
prove that from admitted facts in this
\ case it is impossible for their statements
to be taken by this jury as accurate. Hf
challenged the Attorney General to push
one of the essential facts proved by as
in this case from its solid basis, and YET
there are consequences flowing from
these facts which he cannot destroy. H'
| proceeded to demonstrate that the tree
in this case was q witness that spok'
| neither with forgetfulness nor with ven
] geance The appearance OF that tre
and that unfortunate boys back ant
the arm of the other boy proves that tn
. gun was loosely loaded, that the sho
0 was scattering and consequently tn
: shot was distant one And sagain, Nh
a Woodward must have been in lin
= | with the tree when he fired the gun
witnesses tell you that the range OF tn
= shot on that tree is such that If .contir
ued it would have passed into the bac
= of q boy had he been there. He the
" proceeded to the direct testimony OF tn
boys, claiming that there could be foun
no truth that this jury would net an
- | could not depend upon their testimon
l. in so small matter IA tho purchase
r. horse, much less trust them when
human life is in dependence upon the
word. 1t is IL rule that where witne'
l. IllS Deoll o1iloAiC N'AN-o -
10 to be disbelieved altogether. q - I'd
The proofs of theunreliability of the'
bows is the rent in their testimony, an
is also proved from exterior proofs. II
~ claimed that they all told exactly I'll
or same story, but all their positions beli
different. He criticized the boy Spea
mans statement, that he neither 50
nor pulled down the notices, and c,tt
the witnesses who had sworn to the
presence before and after TINS occu
er renee. When man begins his tes!
ad mony with q lie are you gong to take hi
into your further consideration ne
MED that these boys, taking the distanc
in account, could by any possibiiity ma
heard what they swore they. did. II
facts render such statement lmposslt
of belief. He Showed Skelleys, utt
vorthlessnessas as witness. He called y
attention of the jury to the TACT that I
mn vengeance of these boys did not stop wi
"s the indictments OF Aaron X. Woodwa
for murder of the first degree, but, tn
{. have caused another bill to be foul
against him for assault and battery WI
nd intent to kill John Skelley. Fearing IN
tor he might get clear OF the one charge Tn
have reserved another for his bene1
' He denied the gratultous 1aiseno9u
Speakman that Woodward refused 81
cor to this unfortunate boy apl CLAIM
thai The proven facts in the case utter
), forbid any supposition but that woo
ward did all in his power to aueyla
oes Lukens' suffering. 1t could not ma
se@ been possible that these boys told
what was true, and if You, as you mu
c35 have a reasonable doubt OF these sta
ads ments, that doubt is for u prisoner, a
on the court will tell you and you are bou
aat under your oaths to give the benefits
,,rs r.. it. Mr.. Bayard then proceeded to &C
xu. slider the theory Of the defence as to t
ice happening of the occurrence. he cat
hat the proof of good character as given
men of all parties. With man OF su
n character it seems perfectly inco
ges prehensible but that the gun should ha
lso. exploded accidentally. The shot, stry
,Ise hse the tree first, then passing on strikes
n'f nersons-could there have been aim
sucha a shotP Its very scattering pro
a: it had none. IL it was aimed at q
-. thing it was aimed at what it struck III
theJtree. If 1T hhd q purpose IT str
the tree, il it had no purpose and STR
-. The boys, it was misadventure, but
" crime, He called the jurys attention
the fact thai any one Of them have B.
,us In Woodward's situation to-day. !
No time ii happened to be an incursio,n
'ES. his property, the next time it may be
&c., ,,n,,rS or mine. A farmer going nb