Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1879-04-03

at him. and tlien ran around to his head,
placing the muzzle of his pistol within IL or IL
inches of it; but before he pulled the trigger,
some one in the crowd kicked his hand, and
about simultaneously with the kick, the pis:>
tol discharged Witnesses testified That the
smoke Of this discharge was, between bruner
and Peter ea|}'; i.f''| ''!~~
At this stage the parties were separated.
Bruner went into Hagans' bar-room, followed
by the Murrays The bartender put Bruner
out at the back door, ;Iand P. NJ. Murray took
a seat in the barfo0fn, replying to questions
from both Mr.. Holler and Mr.. Goodwin, that
he had not been shot.
1t was discovered soon afterwards, however,
that he had received wound in the breast,
when he was placed on the billiard table and
DR.. J. w. Fewell was summoned to attend
him. He found three wounds-a transverse
wound on the left breast; slight scalp wound,
as if grazed by ball, about five inches below
this wound, but having no connection with it;
and an hour and half later, after the removal
of Murray to his hotel, the wound in his abdo-
men-the wound causing death, was discover
ed. DR.. Fewell gave as his opinion that the
wound in the abdomen and that in the breast
were inflicted by balls of different callibre
though on cross examination by the State So
licitor, he stated that the apparent difference
in the size of the wounds might be accounted
for by the muscular development of the differ
ent portions Of the body. DR.. Fewell further
testified that he proposed to make post NOR
tenn examination of the body, to which assent
was given by the relatives of the deceased, but
subsequently, on returning from his office, af-
ter having made the necessary preparation for
that purpose, he was not permitted to make
the examination.
It was proved that the Murray brothers
were men of violent temper, aggressive, domi-
neering and tyranical in their disposition;
quarrelsome and vindictive; that Peter NJ.
Murray was a man Of strong muscular devel-
opment, weighing over two hundred pounds,
and physically much superior to Mr.. Bruner.
It was also shown that two or three days
after the occurrence, L. G. Murray ceased
working at Rock Hill, where he had contracts,
and has not been back there since and atten-
tion was called to the fact, that he was not
even present in Court to aid in the prosecution
of the alleged slayer of his brother. aa.,
x Immediately after the affray, Bruner Was
detained and locked up in the guard-house in
Rock Hill, and on the death of Murray and
after the coroner's inquest, he wa, regularly
committed, by Trial Justice Fewell, to jail in
Yorkville, where he remained until trial, ma
king no effort to obtain release from prison by
writ Of habeas corpus.
The above are the material facts, as corrobo-
rated by a majority of the witnesses. 2 The
theory of the defence was, first, that the ac-
cused acted in elf-defence, and if he took the
life of one of his assailants, it was justifable
act; and second, that the mortal wound-the
only wound for which they were called to an
swer-was inflicted, not bya pistol in the hand
Of Henry Bruner, but by the discharge OF
pistol fired by Lewis G. Murray, when'he fired
while standing at the feet of Bruner, or by the
discharge of the same pistol when kicked from
the aim Lewis G. Murray took at Burners
head r.
In support of these theories, arguments were
made by two Of the counsel for defence -Messrs.
Wylie and w. B. Wilson, Sen. Mr.. Wylie
appeared first, and in an address of two hours
to the Court and jury, made "a mastery argu-
.ment. Every position he assumed from the
testimony was well maintained by reasoning
and argument, and his eloquent appeal in be-
half Of the accused-a stranger from sister
State-Whose mission here TO obtain employ
ment to honestly earn support for his wife
and children at their distant home; had terlni-
mated so unfortunately, moved every heart
and moistened every eyeiwithin the sound OF
his voice. Mr.. Wilson pursued the same line
of argument consuming less time; however,
than his associate, yet making an able effort,
which he closed with touching appeal in be-
half of the accused MI. Solicitor CASTOR, for
the State, closed. His conduct OF the case
throughout, and his argument on behalf OF the
State whose laws had been violated, were cred
liable to his fine sensibilities as man, but. yet
an official who could not swerve from the stern
duties imposed upon him by the law whose
majesty he is sworn to uphold and protect.
In summing up the testimony and charging
the jury, his Honor instructed them that before
they could find d verdict Of guilty, they must
be entirely satisfied that it was the ballot the
defendant that inflicted the fatal wound! On
this point there,must be- mo reasonable doubt,
but they must be fully satisfied of the fact.
He then referred to the lack Of corToboration
of the. testimony Of the first witness intro
duced on behalf Of the State. He did not
charge wrong motives to the witness, but he
felt bound to say that he did not find him cor
roborated by any 2of the other witnesses on
material points Six witnesses testify totone
fact of which he says. nothing. iHersays Cass
Murray did not strike defendant before de
fendant fired five witnesses say he did. did. He
says that the defendants first firing was At
P. M. Murray. Others say it was at Cass
Murray. He says he kicked up the pistol and
took hold Of Cass Murray's hand, when the
pistol discharged in the direction of Hagans'
building All the other witnesses say ekick-
ed it out Of Murray's hand, and one says he
picked it, up from the ground. He !,s speaks OF
an interval between the beating and firing.
All the others say it was simultaneous. One
only sustains him as to the opinion that the
ball of the kicked pistol went in the Direction
of Hagans' house, and this witness, on cross
examination, says, upon making search, he
could not find the ball in Hagans'honseJ This
circumstance you are, ITO weigh, While the
first and second witnesses for the State are OF
opinion that the ball went in the direction Of
Hagans' house, three differ from them as to the
direction. These circumstances you are bound
to weigh Can we SO rely upon one witness,
who differs so widely from all the other wit
nesses, as to leave no reasonable doubt P'HOr
do all the other witnesses know more aboutit
than he, and does their testimony repaeye all
reasonable doubt as to his correctness?. II you
doubt his memory, or the correctness of his