Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-01-10
THE HOUSEN MURDER.
Decision Of the Supreme Court Grant
ing Jere stokes a New Trial.

Decision Of the Supreme Court Grant.
ing Jere stokes a New Trial.
Jere Stokes, who was convicted Of the
murder Gin the second degTee) Of Ms.
HOusen, in this county, and sentenced to
thirteen years in the penitentiary, was
granted new trial by the Supreme Court
yesterday, the opinion being delivered by
Associate Justice Mcfarland:
"The prisoner offered as a witness the
wife Of Dick Nolen; she was objected 20
and held to be incompetent by the Court,
upon the ground that Dick Nolan was
jointly indicted with the prisoner for the
murder. A severance, however, had been
had and the prisoner was alone upon
trial.
at is conceded by the Attorney General
that the witness was competent, but it is
argued that there should be no reversal, be-
cause the bill Of exceptions does not show
what the testimony Of the proposed witness
would have been or that it would have been
material, and, therefore, it does not appear
that the prisoner has been injured. We are
referred in support Of this proposition 10
Ezell vs.. the Justices of Giles county, 3
Head, and Holmarke vs.. MOlin, Cold
well. In the first case this Court refused
to reverse ON account of the rejection Of
certain testimony of deceased witness; in
the other, Of certain declarations Of party
in possession of personal property as to the
title, because it did not appear what was
the character of the declarations or testi-
mOny proposed, and it was, therefore, not
shown that the Court was in error. When
the question is as TO the competen-
cy and materiality Of the testimony
offered, it is necessary to show the charac-
ter Of the testimony so that the court may
determine its competency and materiality,
and there should be no removal unless
competent and material testimony has
been rejected. Yet where the question is
as to the competency Of the witness, and
the court errs in rejecting a witness clearly
competent, 1t has not been regarded as
necessary to 90 farther and show that, if
the party had been permitted to examine
the witness, he could have proven material
facts by him. Nothing else appearing, it
will be taken that the witness was offered
in good faith.
sThe difference between the cases re-
ferred to and the present, is that in those
/ cases the question was as TO the cOmpe-
tency and materiality Of the testimony
/ offered and this court could not affirm that
| the Circuit Judge had erred in rejecting
the testimony without hearing what was
proposed. Here the question was as to the
competency Of the witness, and we can see
clearly that the court erred in holding the
witness incompetent. The question as to
the competency and mateTiality Of
the testimony was not reached
or considered. 1t may turn out, it is true,
that the witness will prove nothing, but
the prisoner has the right to have the wit
ness examined. See Moffitt vs.. the State,
, Humphreys, Workman vs.. the State,
Sneed.
"Reverse the judgment and remand the
cause for a new trial"
Of four persons tried for this murder by
the Criminal Court, all were acquitted but
Stokes, who was convicted only Of being
accessory. The principal in the attrocious
crime was never reached in the prosecution