Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-08-29
THE HITE MURDER
Brought Up i'm the Trial of Frank
James---Graphic Description
of the Burial.
Strong Evidence for the State---A News
paper Reporter Refuses to Tell
Office Secrets.

ST. LOUIS, August 2S.-The Post Dispdtch's
Gallatin tMo.) special saws the Frank
James trial was resumed this morning.
The defense asked permission to intro
duce specific acts against the witness Mrs.
Bolton, with a view of attacking her
credibility. The intention was to open up
the murder of Wood Hite at Ford's house,
for which Liddell is now under indict-
ment and OF which Mrs. Bolton and Capt.
Ford were witnesses. The Court decided
that Mrs. Bolton could be recalled and
examined, not as to the killing, but as to
what she had told neighbors who called
upon her on Sunday, December ), 1881,
and ate dinner, while the lifeless body of
Hite was upstairs. Mrs. Bolton testified
that Wood Hite was killed in the dining
room, but refused to answer when the
body was taken upstairs. The extended
cross-eXamination failed to ,,ring out any
thing definite as to the killing or burial of
Hite's body by night by the spring in the
pasture. She either purred out a refusal
to answer, or else could not remember.
Capt. Ford was next called and examined
as to the burial of Hites body.
Ida Bolton, aged fourteen, daughter of
Mrs. Bolton, was the next witness. She
was present at the killing OF Wood Hite,
but witness was not permitted to say who
did it. She narrated the details of the
CltdliiiS vi lilt
mother did the latter This was in direct
contradiction to her mothers testimony.
Willie Bolton, sixteen years old, was the
next witness for the State. This morning
he positively identified Frank James as the
associate of Liddell, Jesse james and the
two Hites. The description of the burial
of Hite was graphic and thrilling. Capt.
Ford, Bob Ford and Wilbur Ford un-
dressed the body where it had lain on the
| floor all day and wrapped il in horse
blanket. They then took it out and buried
it in pasture. On cross-examination,
witness admitted having said that although
he did not know Hall and Frank James
to be the same person, he intended to
swear they were, anyhow. James T.
Hughes and J. T. Ford being recalled,
gave unimportant testimony. Recess.
Ezra Goule testified that he lives near
Winston; that he saw the defendant near
| Winston in low place surrounded by
thick trees; talked with defendant, who
seemed very cautious; claimed to be a
stock-buyer, and was In pursuit of lost
! COW. Witness saw place there where
! five horses had been hitched in the even
| ing.
While on the stand as witness for the
| State, Frank O'Neil, of the st. Louis Re
publican, was asked where the interviews he
had with Frank James, and which was
| published i'll that paper when Frank
| surrendered, were held. As the
witness declined to answer or give
his reason for declining, the Court has
| given him till tomorrow to decide, In
the event of his refusal to answer In case
the State insists on his answer he will
doubtless be committed to Jail for contempt
of court.
Witness declined to answer, giving as a
| ha 10 hot ha oil
| pledge to keep secret the place of the in
terview and the names of those present.
| The Rep,tblican's special gives the follow
ing testimony in the afternoon session:
James Mallory, farmer, living eight
miles from Gallatin, testified that on
Thursday before the Winston robbery he
saw Frank James at Potts's blacksmith
shop, where he was having 2 horse shod.
There was another man with James. Wit
ness had discussion with James concern
| ing the assassination OF President Gar
field. James told him that he Was living in
Caldwell county.
Jonas Potts, blacksmith who shod the
horse referred to by Mallory, testified that
he lived four miles northwest of Winston.
He believed he had seen defendant in his
shop the latter part of June, 1881, and that
he was there again on the 18th or 14th of
July. On both occasions witness shod a
horse for defendant and another man,
whom he recently recognized as Dick Lid
dell. He felt he had seen Frank James
twice before at the Kansas City fair, when
Goldsmith Maid trqtted, and at the Hanil-
| ton fair, but he was not certain. Witness
was cross-examined at some length as to
the identification of the defendant, but
seems to be pretty certain on that point.
On redirect examination witness stated
that when having his horse shod Frank
James gave his pams as Green Coop
er, cattle dealer of Ray coun-
ty. subsequently witness recognized in
livery stable at Liberty, Mo-. the mare
he had shod on the occasion of James s
first visit to his shop. Wash Hilton, d
statement, he having been at the black
smith-shop when the two men had the
mare shod on the morning before the
Winston robbery,
Mrs. Potts, vile of the blacksmith, testi-
fed to the correctness of her husbands
statement, and identified the defendant as
one of the men who took breakfast at he's
house on the day before the Winston rob.
berry.
Frank R. O'Neil, reporter of the St
Louis Republican, testified to having an in
terview with Frank James, in Missouri 6
week before the latter surrendered, anG
that it was correctly published in the
Republican. He rehearsed some o
this interview, as to where Franz
James lived while in Tennessee, what ht
did and when and why he left there etc
Circuit-Attorney Hamilton then asked
witness where the interview occurred, t,
which witness replied that he preferred
not TO answer, and asked to be relieved
from stating anything further than it oc
Cured in Missouri. The question wa
temporarily Withdrawn, and witness wa
asked who~was present at the interview
tie replied: ',Frank James's wife" WhC
else was asked him, and witness stated h,
felt under obligation not to answer, Tn,
Court said he must answer. Witness ther
said he declined to answer, not from any
perverseness, but when he met Franl
James on that occasion he was una der
pledge, as the other person or persons who
were present might be prejudiced by
statement that they were there. Messrs
johnson and Phillips, of the prosecu
ton, asked that witness be excused
from violating. an obligation. The
Court stated that witness mus
answer the question if it were insisted ON
Mr.. Hamilton insisted, and the Cour
ruled that the witness must answer, bu
gave him until tomorrow to do so. Ham
ilton then asked two more questions as Il
where the interview was held and whethe
the persons then present were m the list o
witnesses summoned in this case, both o
which Hamilton said must be answered.
Free-Trade Conference Called.
From a neatly printed circular, received