The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1882-04-13

fed copy. Nevertheless, in crimi-
nal case involving human life we
are not inclined to visit on the de-
fendant the consequences of the
oversight of his counsel.
The objection now taken to the
records read is, that they were not
relevant to the issue, and tn at the
entry on the judges docket was not
evidence for any purpose, and GER
tainly not to contradict the minutes
of the court. The issue in the
present case was the guilt or inno-
cence of the prisoner of the crime
for which he was being tried, and
to make out the charge of murder in
the first degree it became necessary
to show malice and generalization.
For this purpose it was relevant to
introduce proof tending to establish
ground of enmity between the
prisoner and the deceased. Evi-
dence that there had been a crimi-
nal trial in which the prisoner was
principal witness for the state, and
that he was discredited by the de-
ceased whereby the prosecution
failed and the defendant greatly
angered, was clearly relevant. The
best evidence for this purpose, as
far it would go, was the record of
the cases. And testimony that
there was trial of the presentment,
in the course of which the prisoner
and the deceased were opposing
witnesses, before the entry of a mol.
pros, was admissible, for it did not
contradict the record. The result
Of the trial may have led to the
judgmens. The parol proof was not
objected to by the defendant. The
objection made in argument is to
the judges memoranda on the trial
docket. These memorada, it is
clear, were no part of the record,
and should not have been admitted.
But the only object of introduction
was to show that there was a mis-
trial, and inferentially trial. But
this fact was established by the
positive testimony of several wit
nesses, without objection, and was
not disputed, the defendant both in
writing and conversation being show
to have referred 10 the trial, and
the course of the deceased on that
occasion. The court can clearly
see that the memorandum was use
less, and that its admission as evi-
dence could not po. .-ibly have preju-
diced the prisoner. McAGams VS..
state, NJ. S. opinion at this term.
The state proved, as we have
mentioned, that on the day of the
trial of the presentment against
Clark, the defendant was greatly
enraged at Goodrum for discredit
ing him, and used threatening Ian
guage on the subject. There was a
wedding at defend cnt's house on the
I'd of December, aftcr the trial, to
which deceased had been invited.
Defendant wrote deceased letter
forbidding him to come to his
house; and ON that evening he re-
peatedly said to several persons,
and while at the table with his
guests, that he would kill Goodrum,
as one witness testlfes, but as most
of them say, he would kill him if he
came upon his premises. There is
testimony Of hostile language on
other occasions; and one witness
testif1es that ON May l defendant
said to him that those fellows in the
store were mad at him and he would
out them yet.
In this state OF the proof the
defendant offered to prove by his
brother, and other witnesses, that
after the wedding, and before the
killing, the witness had heard the
defendant say that he had no enmi
ty against the deceased and wished
to be friendly with him, and sent
him word to that effect. 1t is sug-
gested, not argued, that this was
error. But we are not aware of any
principle upon which a criminal can
thus be allowed to make evidence
for himself.
The evidence on which the pris-
oner was convicted is circumstan
tial, and his counsel have dwelt up
on its insufficiency to sustain the
verdict.
The prisoner resided about two
hundred yards nearly due east from
a country store, which fronted on
public road running nearly north
and south, and at which was kept
the post office of the neighborhood.
James A. T. Goodrum, a young
man, was a clerk in the store. On
the night of the 23rd of July, 1881,
he was in the back room of the
store with one Dwyer, a school
master, who was teaching him latin.
j. X. Trigg, the owner of the store,
resided in a house about thirty
yards to the southwest. His broth
er H. w. Trigg lived about one
hundred yards from the store in q
south -easterly direction, his resi-
dence being about one hundred and
fifty yards from the house of the
prisoner. The public road was
fenced on both sides, east belonging
to the prisoner and the fence on the
west to J. K. Trigg. There was a
fence around the store to the north
of which was first potato patch or
garden, and then cornfield extend
ing to the fence on the road. The
prisoner has access to the road and
the store by private path through
his lot. To the north of this path,
Immediately adjacent to the fence
on the public road was a sorghum
patch, and behind in the same en-
closure a cornfield. The weather
had been very dry, and the ground
was dusty.
About O'Clock on the night of
the 23rd of July, j. X. Tris,g called
to Goodrum from his residence to
tell him the meaning of word.
Goodrum got up from his chair,
went to the door which orened to
the south and answered the aues-
ton. AS he turned from the door
to resume his seat, he was shot
through a window in the rear of
the room, five large buckshot strik-
him, one passing through the heart,
and another through the head.
Dwyer called j. K Trigg, and the
two lifted the deceased from the
n