The Russellville Democrat., 1880-10-21

gone Up Tore dat jury for two years. So Mir. Jacoway has no more to splain.
 The court then said to him, you have been afforded all your constitutional rights to speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of your own selec- ton of twelve good and impartial men of Id judgement who after having all the testimony adduced on the trial, receiving the Instructions of the court, and the arguments of coun- sef, retired to consult of their verdict and afterwards returned into court their verdict that you were guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment. It now remains for the court to pass sentence upon you. The judgement of the court is that you JohE Johnson be now taken from the bar of this court and conveyed to the penitentiary of the state of Arkansas and delivered to the keeper thereof and to be confined therein at hard labor for the period of two years.
 Thursday 14th, night session. State vs. Cal Emory, murder. The defen> dant Cal Emory by attorneys, Capt. Byers and Col. Fielder filed motions for new trial therein upon the ground of newly discovered evidence material to the interest of the defendant found> ed upon the testimony of Dr. J. c. Kirkscey anu Dr. R. W. Johnson two distinguished medical gentlemen of Dover whose statements were diame- trically in opposition and in reversal of the testimony of Dr. W. A. Car ter and Dr. Turner in regard to the broken rib and the blood or plastic matter before and after death of the murdered woman, and which state ments were not however sworn to. The attorney stating that these gentle men were present in court and would testify to the same upon the stand, asked the court to have them sworn, to which Capt. McKennon attorney for the state objected, when the attor> neys for defendant entered into argu- ment before the court, during the argu- ment Dr. Kirkscey arose and stated to the court he did not feel willing to tess .ify as an expert in this case unless he was paid fifty dollars. Dr. Johnson arose and stated that he had net volun- tarily made the statements as to the testimony he might give, but that he had been overheard by one of the de> fendants attorneys rather critisizing that part of the testimony as not in accordance with his views at the time of and during the tria. before the jury, and that after the trial the attorneys presented him the statement just read to the court and asked him If that was what he said and beleived to which he gave his asent, when he was asked to sign it which he refused to do unless fifty dollars was paid him as an expert to testify therein. Arguments on the part of the defence were continued stating the defendant was unable to pay this sum being poor and asked the court that an order be made to pay the said experts the sum of fifty dollars each, and that they be permitted to testify in the case. The court refused to make the order, thereupon the attor- neys filed their own affi davits to all these facts within the knowledge of said experts as stated and in support of their demurrer which by leave of court was filed as an amendment thereto, which demurrer after consids rable ar- gument of attorneys was overuled by the court and new trial refused. To which the defendant asked leave to ex- cept which was granted and time given to prepare the same. Court adjourned until m orning.
 Friday morning sla o'clock court opened.
 State vs. Cal Emory murder. The attorneys for state and de fendant being present Cal Emery the defendant was brought into the court. The defendant by attorneys asked for sixty days time to prepare and file their bill of exoep- tions In this case which after some dis cussion and agreement by state and defence therin the court extended to the defendant the period of twenty days to prepare and filelhis bill of exceptions and to take his appeal to the Supreme court.
 The defendant in custody of the sheriff appeared at the bar in order that the judgment of the court might be pronounced. The court then pro- ceeded to read to the defendant the law in relation to the crime of murder, and the punishment therefor, and to inform the defendant of the nature of the in- dictment against him, his plea and the verdict thereon; and having done so, the court asked the defendant if he had any legal excuse to show why judg- ment should not now be pronounced against him; to which
 CAL EMORY,
 the defendant, replied: '1 have. I am not guilty of murdering that wom- an. I declare before high Heaven I am innocent of murdering her. wish to make some few remarks; it may do some poor one good hereafter. I do