The New Orleans Democrat., 1876-05-21

that OF a brave, ChivairOuS man, but
reckless when In anger, was well known
to Hardeman, who had been his CLASS
mate and the companion Of his youth.
Knowing this, and the fact that Harde-
man knew that he (Prestidge) was
armed, as Is evidenced by the former
saying to the latter, II am not afraid of
your pistol" the fact also that Harde-
man advanced deflantly towards him
while making the remark, all these cir
cumstances, counsel contended, were
more than sufficient to create fear in the
mind Of the accused for his personal
safety. He further went on to illustrate
the recklessness and daring Of Harde-
man, as he called it, by relating how he
had thrown the tumblers at Prestidge's
head after the first fire. how he had gone
around into the other room to q desk, a
distance Of sixty feet, and got the
llgnum vitm rule and returned to
break it over Prestidge's head. Here
again counsel extended his remarks on
the animus Of Hardeman, contended
that Prestdge was justified i'm fearing
bodily injury from the beginning. Then
Nj New went on to say that when the
fight occurred, it being between and
~ O'Clock in the evening. the room
w,to dark, ana that the bringing up Of
his hands to the arm holes Of his vest by
Eardeman, as stated by Black, might
naturally have been misconstrued by
Prestidge, owing to the darkness and
the popularity Of the situation. Major
New again referred to the want Of evi
dence TO show that the shot that killed
liarleman was the first shot, and after
reviewing the testimony and the circurn
stances maintained that the shot that
struck him was the second, or at Il time
whom, beyond question, he was acting
in sclf-defenso.
Major News argument lasted over two
hours also. and the court adjourned
until this morning at ten o'clock.
Tho couit room was again packed his
morning by lawyers merchants and
people Of all classes, to hear the argu
meuts in this case.
At halfpast 10 o'clock. II. G. Castcl-
lanos, Esq. began his argument for the
defense Mr. Castellanos opened by cit
ing authorities on the weight Of
evidence, and tho rights of the
sonable doubt. Then followed q
discourse on the intense hostility Of
iIardeman against Prestidge, which
counsel seemed to doubt could arise
from simple deriliction of duty, rs al
legged, on the part Of Prestidge; the
auimus which moved Hardeman to
write tho letter asking for meeting
that evening, when the meeting could
have taken place the next day Sunday
Just as well and under better circum-
stances.
The remainder Of Mr.. Castellanos
argument, which covered space of
time Of three hours and n quarter. was
principally to show that the killing was
done in self-defense, and adduced in
proof that Prestidge had been taken into
the cotton room and when the first shot
was fired he was within n space Of three
feet four inches between cotton table
and the stout wall. with another one at
his back, and Hardeman and Black
blocking the passage within few feet
from him.
IT, G. Miller, ESQ, for the defence,
followed, and his argument was also a
lengthy one. like his colleague, his pur-
pose was TO establish reasonable appre
hension for his life on the part Of Pres
tidge when he fred the first and second
shots. Mr. Miller also devoted much
of his time in citing and explaining the
law, touching particularly on assault
and when he closed, Judge George II |
Braughn closed for the State
Mr.. Braughn began by refutng reflec- |
tions on the argument of r. H. Marr. |
Esq, paying his colleague n high tribute |
for the self control which he had shown
which be deemed remark
able, considering that Major Hardeman
was u kinsman and friend Of Mr.. Mari |
Hc took occasion Immediately there |
after to give u severe rebtlke to Major |
New, who had qualified as horrifying the |
fact that the State had sought assistance
to convict the accused. Judge Braughn |
said il came in bad grace from the |
who was himself, even at |
this moment employed by the United |
States Government to assist the United /
States District Attorney in convicting |
the accused In the whisky cases.
Before entering into the argument of
the case proper he prefaced his remarks
by calling it most remarkable case,
on account OF the respectability OF the
persons engaged, their high station, So
cially and commercially, and the inter
est which it had excited in the com
devoid of defense so far as facts are
and that the defense
had relied entirely on argumentand the
citation of precedents and law 10 make
out their case. for all of which he com
plmented the distinguished gentlemen
defending the accused. He, however,
treated the arguments Of the defense as
ingenious and not based on law or facts
refuted all the principal points they had
to make denied the dark
ness Of the cotton room. which was sep I
arated from the lighted front room only
by u glass sash partition f.; denied that it
was possible for Prestidge'5 hat, in
evidence in court. to have been
3ut by q tumbler OF the ruler,
stating that it was proved by the
,lerk Wilson, that Prestidge had taken
IF his coat and nat when he came in,
md had gone into the cotton room
Without them, and that the fact was
noticed by the clerk, who
lad called Prestidge's attention to the
act that the bracket on which he usu
,lly hung them was broken. The
murder case, which occurred
II Massachusetts in 1903 and the
handler case, in New Orleans in 1S4s,
which had been quoted from fire.
luently by the defense, he main
aimed, were not parallel cases to
his. In the first case Selfridge
,ad killed Austin only after the latter
,ad struck him with stick larger than
II of which ha habitt1n lI4- porriai and