The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1885-05-26
OHIO vs.. WILLIAM L. NORRIS.
TCoNCLUDED.1 I

OHIO vs.. WILLIAM L. NORRIS.
CONCLUDED.
see any blood on revolver, don't re
member whether had 1t in my hands
b. kar had It; had not heard Baker ss,
anything about going away.
Rebutting Testimony.
By the State--Mrs. o. o.. SNYDER--'
heard Jake say at the briggs house OIL
March 9th, that Norris shot him, ant
Norris made no reply. Norris said i
was impossible for third party to hav,
been IN that stable TO shoot him. Asked
him where the revolver was; said Bake
had it and Baker then pulled it out o
his pocket.
DJense>-Mr. Norris said ,"I thinl
it was an accident" l thitk Norris sale
he was near enough to see the fash
Mrs. Tillman, Will West and o,herl
present.
Mrs TILLMAN was the next witness
Heard jake say: "Tbere is the man who
shot me, pointing to N iris: Mr.. Nor
ris made no reply. Atterwar6, said i
was an accident, didn't know whether
the pistol went of in bis pocket or not
ked him II there was a bullet hole II
Jskes pocket, said there was not. / ther
said it could not have been an accident
w. T. WEsT-Norris said, "Jsk
shot himself" Afterwards Norris said
"J;ke says / shot him and l have nj
way TO get out Of it," In reply to Mrs
Snyder he said it was impossible for any
one to have been in the stable to shoo
him
Mrs. DRraas testified to about th,
same as did the last three witnesses.
Moses RorrESBURa-Did not say t.
Matte Norris "Somebody had shot m
or the horse bit me-" never owned
pistol that had metal handle, don
know John w. Henthorn, Harvey Ms
honey did not travel With me Ostobe
16, 1883, did not exhibit revolver I
him, know jefferson Woods, was not i
Denoop's stable with him, had no re
volver when met Workman, had non
at Nelson Coverts
Quite number OF witnesses we're call
ed at the session Wednes isv evening t.
prove the character OF Mr. Norris. With
out exception they gave him an excellen
reputation as neighbor and citizen.
w. J. Bonham testified that be ives !
briggs stable With jake and Hixenbaug
and that Jake did not have revolve
out, would have seen it il he had chow
il to Hixenbaugh, or had it out
The testimony was all in at 81 o'clocl
Thursday morning, when the witnesse
we're discharged.
The Arguments.
j. P. SPRIaGs, E o.. of counsel 70
the State, addressed the jury at con
siderable length on the law governing
the case. He spoke about two hours.
W. F Hunter, Esq, and Hon. L
DANFcRD, for defense, spoKe about tw,
hours each and presented that side ofth
case in forcible manner.
]. b. DRIGas, E-q., Pr, scouting At
torney, spoke fully two and a half hours
going through the evidence of witnesse
and presenting the Law 10 mas,erl.
manner that won for him congratula
tons from quite number when he hat
closed.
Judge KELLY Immediately proceeded
with his charge 10 the jury, which VI
give in full below:
Charge of the Court.
Gentlemen Of the Jury: The indict
ment 10 this case charges that defendant
William L. Norris, on the Oath of Marcel
last, at the county Of Monroe, unlaw
fully, proposely and maliciously sho
Moses Rotlenburg with intent. as th
indictment charges, TO kill wound, o
main Rottenburg. The indictment con
tains three counts. as they are called
They all relate to the same transaction
and there is no material difference be
tween them except that the iirst coun
or statement Of the charge alleges tha
the shooting was done with the inten
to kill, the second count with intent t.
wound and the third with intent to MAIN
Gentlemen, you have patiently listened
to the testimof y and to the argument
Of counsel. The case is an importan
and in some particulars a strange on,
and upon you rests the duty to carefully
and patiently examine it and render th'
verdict such ss the testimony and th,
law may require. There is no contro
versy as TO any question of law; th'
controversy is as to questions OF fac
entirely, and it is the province and th'
duty OF the jury alone to decide ques
tions Of fact. The court has no right t.
interfere with you; all that can do i
to call your attention to the questions
or some of them. that you have to pass
upon, aud this can do in this case very
briefly.
The main question in the case is, die
defendant William L. Norris shoot Mo
ses Rettenburg. Defendant and Rot
teiburg have both been examined al
witnesses before you. II appears fror
their testimony that Rottenbsrg vas
peddlsr, travelling through the country
for The sale of his goods, using horses
and wagon; thst be was IN the habi
of stopping at the house OF the defend
ant in this county; that on Saturday: th,
2ist Of March last, he stopped there aut
staid until the next Tuesday II appears
that on Tuesday morning about O'Clock
probably, in broad daylight, defendan
and Rottenhurg went to the stable-R It
tenhurg going for his horses, as be in.
tended to leave that morning. The stable
was but short distance from the house
OF the defendant. At the house were his
wife and several children, Mr. Baker
q guest. who staid there the night be.
fore There was no quarrel hetweer
Norris and Rottenburg-No claim thai
there was any difference between them
they appeared TO have been friends. A
few minutes after they bad been OF the
stable, Rottenbure received q wound
alleged to have been from q ball fred
from pistol.
The first question for the jury4 to de.
termine is, Was that wound inflicted by
pistol ball? You have heard the tes.
timony upon that subject, and among
others, you have heard The testimony o.
Dr's. Farqubar and Armstrong. They
examined it and probed it; they found
Lal QNL.- t..n:f. =. A. a.~th Az