The daily gazette., 1874-12-01
FIRST EDITION
The Murder Trial..
LContinued from first Yage.lt 7

a-.s4 i
lContinued from first Yage.l i
Samuel Allen, sworn:-Live In Whining
ton; have Known woodward for years;
his reputation Is Of on honest, quiet man 4
he is kind and human man. II
David Greares, sworn Live in Mill
Creek Hundred; have known Wood ward all
his life; never head anything against his
character. =. 4. -, i
John X, Lyman % lI,fmsd - LIye 10 South
Christiana Hundred; have known Wood-ll
ward ever since ho was o child; his reputa-
ton Is very good for peace and good order.
Edward Woodward, recalled:-Know the
gun that A. K. Woodward shot itwas ALL
ways kept loaded; havo examined the gun
since Ocf 9th; one barrel was loadsd and theil
other ia not; it was taken up stairs After
this occurrence; my brother was not in tho
habit Of shooting; never en- " him discharge
a gun.
Cros,examined ed:-Saw that gun not more
than two days after Oct, 9th; have had gen.
eral supervision over my brothers property;
don't know where the gun was from The 9th
of Oct. until saw it.
Defence closed ut twenty Minutes Of two
o'clock.
Court took n recess until 300 p. M.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
At the re-assembling OF Court Deputy
Attorney General, addressed the jury
substantially as follows q MsNtS
Gentlemen of the Jury. Ann pleased
to know that you have heard all the facts
in the case, every fact in it from the
morning Of the fatal day until the close
of the scene over the death-bed Of the
boy. 1t will be necessary in looking over
the matter, to read over the definition OF
the crime, and then go over the facts and
show you the weakness OF the defense
and the strength Of the State. Defines
mu rder,and its devisions into murder of
| the first and second degrees, speaks of
| malice as one of the four incidents that
enters into the crime Of murder. Defined
also manslaughter. He alleged that Lu-
kens was wounded by the prisoner from
which he died the next day; he died from
| tho deliberate mind and formed design
to killIdefence tell you they would prove
that Woodward seeing boys nearthe tree
GOO yards from his house, he took up his
gun us matter Of self defence and that
he fired the gun without deliberation.
| The proof is not on all fours with the
line of defence; you have seen the boys
who were at the tree; the stature Of but
one exceeds mine: mere boys but one
Mr.. H., then reviewed Miss Stidham' s
testimony at length; an attempt has
been made to prove that he was not shot;
if he was unaccustomed to gun why
| should he take IN instrument with which
he was unaccustomed to defend himself
with. If he could not hit turkey as
was attempted to be shown, he did hit
the boy and two of them;it is beyond my
apprehension to know what he wanted
with gun, he knew not how to use, il
/ 4. .,.@ .. ,1 4. xyl.n lU4nl
| ward came to the tree what did he do
| The boys came down in obediance to his
mandate and he helped him down with a
stick The boys left in hot haste; what
should man foar from hueipg enemy
No, when he saw that boy getting out Of
his reach then Woodward insulted his
God by sending unheralded into his pres
ence IL soul II d mortal man. Then n
was, that malice rode on the leaden bul
let. Mr.. Hodgson here commented Oh
the attempt of the defence to prove thu
intervention of the tree between Wood
ward and Lukens rendered deliberate
aim impossible. He quoted Grears test
mony that the shot could not have hi
| the tree from where Woodward stood
, lie criticized the assertion OF th
defence that such was the dis
tance of tho other boys from the time
of the occurrence and such the interyen
ing obstacles that they could not hav
seen nor heard what they said they did
He then criticised Miss Stidham's testi
mony rs to the seeing OF Speakmap tear
ing down board at a distance OF or
mile from her in u field filed with higl
: grass and under the hanging boughs of.
tree. Gould she Mt that distance SEQ thi
board turned as it was sideways towar'
: | her Can this jury believe that Thes
boys did not see that board when the,
> climbed the tree, and again can this jur
T believe thai this young lady could see
| boar d on that tree the night before, Il
the dusk of the evening, So yards of an
| walking casually by, and not only SEQ
| hut reed it and tell what KIND of sigi
it was. THE defence was that Woodwar,
took the gun outein self defehco, that at
ter he shot this boy he carefully pickle
him up, that he took the boy home, an
that Woodward has good pharacte
Bith some contradictory eVidence agaiIls
3 Skelley. Now suppose he did take hin
home; is there anything unnatural i
that II was when he saw the nature
consequences of his act and his conscienc
| was shifting him and that moved him
r what tenderness may have been used b
Woodward then; suppose Woodward ha
good character.
He might have been st. Paul me
ment before he committed this dir
deed, but the moment he fired that she
he was another man, have nothing I
IS say againstlY oodwards good charactel
Is Let him have it, it does not excuse hir
|, from the legal consequences of hi
o guilt on this OCCASION Mr. Hodgao
>. denied that tho taking of chestnuts wa
: a crime In our statute book and claim
4 ed that Lukens was but trespasse
and liable for damages only. He the
proceeded to summarize the evidenc
,s for the State and accompanied his sun
;: mary with plan of the scene for til
- purpose of proving the correctness c
t.e distances as sworn to by the bog
ne CLAIMED AS far as skelley was cor
\ derned this jury might throw his test
mony entirely out of the case, an
then the case of the State is in posses
sion of all the facts. He argued tina
such was the proven position OF Woot
| -. 4, = GraI AZ ~ al, of Nh a M N