Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1885-12-10


head was bobbing up and down, and the
two men were holding him up. On CROSS
the witness said this was
after Davis had been. brought out of the
alley where he was captured.
John Il Davis, general superintendent
of the Diamond State Iron Company said
the prisoners reputation among the men
in the mill for peace and good order, was
good. The witness said he was not re-
lated to the prisoner.
William Bareford said he had known
Davis since he was small boy, and his
reputation for peace and good order was
very good, better than that of most
young men.
In rebuttal the State called Merritt II.
Paxson, who testified that when he saw
DAVIS, on June 9th. lie had the appear
ance of n man who had been drinking
but certainly was not drink. William
Dale said Davis did not seem to be very
drunk when he saw him. Mary Belt said
he seemed TO he drunk, but did not
stagger. Cecil Willard said that after
the shooting Davis walked away calmly
and without staggering. Mary Colt said
Davis did not seem to be very drunk
when she saw him talking to Officer
Peterson, and she could not say that he
was drunk at all. Morris WEIGH saw
man said to be Davis, at Front and Clay
ton streets, who walked straight and
was not drunk; he did not, however, re-
cognize the prisoner as the man John
Castelow saw Davis after the shooting, and
he did not stagger. William Stinson said
Davis did not seem to be drunk as he was
talking to Peterson before the shooting.
Elijah Horton saw Davis Immediately
after the shooting;he appeared like man
who had been drinking u good deal, but
was not drunk. Elizabeth Wagner saw
Davis before and after the shooting, and
he did not stagger or seem drunk. Gar
rett Il. Hanna, policeman under ex-
Mayor Wales, said he was nj the picnic ut
Specht Il Spahn's during the afternoon,
and saw Davis, who showed signs of hay
ing been drinking but WINS not drunk.
Hewson e. Lannon said that when he
struck Davis with the brick, after Davis
fired at him, he struck with sufficient
force to knock him senseless.
The. State here closed at 1856 O'Clock
Then all the jurors not empaneled in this
case, and also the witnesses in the
Robinson case, were discharged until 10
o'clock Monday morning, and argument
in the pending trial began.
Deputy Attorney-G General Biggs first
addressed the court. He said that on
the question of intoxication, the State
would ask for no special instructions, but
would leave this matter entirely with the
court, for such instructions as they saw
fit to give the jury. He asked for
specific charges as follows; l. As to the
| length of time necessary to form the in
tent that constitutes express malice. q
| As to the killing of peace officer in the
discharge of his duty. 8. That the killing
having been committed, is presumed tc
| have been done with malice, and that the
use of deadly weapon carries with il
the presumption of malice.
Mr.. Biggs then addressed the jury in al
effective argument, in which he discussed
the fallacy of the defence, that man who
MS the proof adduced showed, Ind dranl
only eight or ten glasses of beer, within
three or four hours, could be SO drunk a
to be incapable of distinguishing between
right and wrong or of knowing what HI
was doing. He claimed that if this wa
not clear case of murder of the first de
gree there never was such n case AM
never would be. He asked the jury t,
carefully decide the case, according t
the law and the evidence, and render tn,
only verdict that is possible from tn
facts proved-that of murder of the frs
degree. Mr.. Biggs spoke for 40 minute
and his argument was of unusual strength
and force.
Andrew E. Sanborn, Esq, followed fo
the defence. His argument was that tn
prisoner, at the time of the killing, wa
so drunk that he was utterly incapable G
even knowing what he was doing, muc
less of forming and entertaining th
deliberate intent necessary to constitui
the crime of murder in the first degre,
or even of the implied malice that form
the second grade of the crime. He di
not even know the officer, and therefor
was incapable of feeling any malit
towards him. Mr.. Sanborn reviewed IL
evidence at length in support of tn
theory, and closed with an effective pie
, for the unfortunate prisoner. When
concluded court took recess until %
o'clock.
During this mornings session, Mr.
Peterson, wife of the murdered man, s
! in the court room. She was dressed
! deep mourning, closely yelled, and w
a deeply affected by the circumstances
: the sad affair detailed by the eviden
and the argument of counsel.
a Davis wife and mother were al
\ present, accompanied by IN older broth
J of the prisoner. ALI three were great
i depressed, and the ladies wept pitiful
= during the address of the prosecutio
y The prisoner sat through the entire pr
q ceedings with a listless indifference tn
n has marked his demeanor from his fiji
4 appearance in the court room.
Tho closing scene of the Davis trial,
the afternoon, drew the largest croy
! that ever assembled in the cot
II | room. The main auditorium was dense
T. nncked. while the bar was crowded to
n utmost extent, number of ladies occur
, ing the seats usually allotted to iurym
and members of the bar. Even the ben
1 was encroached upon, the steps on ca
=. side being crowded and all the availa'
o. space being occupied by parties who sto
Is up and eagerly listened to the address
rs throughout the session.
le When court reassembled ut 2.3O o'clot
w Levi @. Bird, ESQ, commenced the closi
e argument for the defence, Arst address,
the court upon the law in the case, us
wished 1t given to the jury. He cited
al opinion of Judge Robinson OF the Marylti
81 court of appeals, in the case OF Char
of Barnes of Cecil county, where 1t was n
he that the condition of the prisoners mi
NJ through the excessive use of liquor, Y
,is such as TO preclude the idea of the NAL
"a and reconciliation which are necessary
III Gradients of murder of the first degl
a. He asked the court to charge as folio
he II the jury believe that the prisoner, Mt
on timeDf the killing, was so intoxicated
g. in such state OF mind as 10 negative
id Thought reflection and meditation necess
Ne TO constitute malice, or that he was unf
" to distinguish between right and wro
~ thew cannot convict the prisoner OF muir
q in the first degree.
at Mr., Bird then addressed the jury,
in what is conceded to be the finest
to most effective of his many able effort
Ar. the New Castle county bar. He ope
vn with pathetic allusion 70 the youth OF
We prisoner, and dwelt at length upon
fe. entire absence of motive or malice in
prisoners crime, as shown by the Sta
ne, evidence, He said the case lacks e'
re- element which goes to make up a cas-
ir- malice. There is not, he said, as m
malice in this case, except what the law
de imply, as you can put upon the point
pad | needle.
.Su Mr.. Bird claimed that on the afternoo
VI .ne tho fatal occurrence the prisoner WA
the drunk MS he could be, and on this poin
zee. drew n graphic picture of the effect
ed. duced ON the mind by the excessive us
sti liuuor, and of the attendant lack of res
INK sibility and consequent loss OF oil rem
n, brance of the occurrences during the DIR
! Z full revel. He hesought the jury in
consideration of the case to throw ovel
AK moor prisoner the mantle of drunken
however dreadful thatmight be. He cl
it with powerful and pathetic appeal tt
hen Jury not to consigp the prisoner to the
,ing lows, but TO consider his previous goot
Io3 and character, and render a verdict tina
hp1 offense had been without malice.
anu Acknowledgement Paynter closed fol
D in no prejudice in this case, but were