Daily Republican., 1885-12-04

pack to bed until about 10 o'clock, and
was called up about o'clock to 70 to
work. He came In TO his breakfast
about 7 O'Clock and went back TO his
work he came home again about 10
o'clock and got ready TO 60 to the
picnic.
John c. Davis testified tina, he is
Of the Diamond State |
rolling mill has held the position for
20 years.. He knows the prisoner, ms he |
hns worked In the mill as far |
rs he knows the general character of |
the prisoner for peace and good order 10 |
good, but he never heard IL discussed |
outside OF the mill.
William Bareford testified that he |
WAS tender at Third strest bridge for IA
years, and has known Davis since he
was small child. He was always q
good boy, and his reputation for peace
and good order has always been good.
Thomas Moreland, William Nc.
Maree and Benjamin Cummins each
testified to the prisoners good charac
ter. Mr.. Bird said that he would rest
with this witness, and Mr.. Biggs In re.
buttal called Merritt II. Paxon, who
testified that when he met Davis. pre-
vious TO the shooting, he was not drunk
Wv heA WV appearance Va - h6h thau
had been drinking.
William Dale was recalled, and stated
that when he saw Davis he did not
think he was drunk. Several other
witnesses were called who testified the
same In regard to his condition.
Morris WEIGH testified that he saw
Davis at Front and Clayton streets pre-.
vious TO the shooting, and although his
face was flushed, he did not seem TO be
drunk. He did not stagger, and tho
witness did not consider him drunk. A
number of other witnesses were exami
ned on this point and all testified, that
although they could SOC that Davis had
been drinking, they did not think he
was drunk.
Heusen Lcnnan was recalled, and tes-
tilted that when he hit him with the
brick the blow was hard enough to rem.
der him insensible.
John W. Sanderson testified that he
saw the prisoner at the picnic, but did
not think he had drank enough TO make
him drunk. He saw him when he wenl
down the road, and he was not 80 drunk
but what he could walk In the path.
This closed the evidence on bott
sides, and the court discharged al
Jurors, not empanneled in this case, I'M
Itil Monday morning at 10 O'Clock, and
the witnesses In the Robinson case were
discharged until the same time.
The Deputy Attorney General theI
Iopened the argument for the State by
lacking the court to instruct the Jury II
regard TO the time required for the for
nation of IA intent 10 constitute ex-
press malice, and also that the killing
ibeipg admitted, 10 10 to BIO presumet
Hi. a. 81 nA hat
tho uoe OF deadly weapon also implied
malice.
/ After submitting these points h
Iopenened his argument TO the jury b.
reminding them that they not onl,
o wed duty TO the prisoner, but ais
: TO the community. He said that tn
lpeople of New Castle we're calling .
them, over the dead body OF poor An
, ldrew 7. Peterson, for them TO d
their duty In this case.
The defense claim that on the day c
the shooting the prisoner WAS 30 drum
that he was not respopsible for his n
1tions, and therefore he could not
!. lguilty OF murder OF the rst degree. III
} reviewed the evidence on this point an
said that although it might be admitts
he was drunk, IL was well establishe
! Iprinciple of law that drunkenness is n
excuso for crime, unlees the accused wa
" in q state of delirium tremens.
III He, however, contended that 1t ha
mot been proved that he was "a drum
as claimed, but 1t had been shown this
=, when he walked down by Andrew ~
terson's he walked straight, althoug
3 he may have staggered little.
He said that it was folly to clair
', that Davis lid not know what he wa
/ ldOing when he shot Peterson, or whe
he fred at his step-son. He .ridicule
1.-The idea of his being as much undt
THE influence of liquor a. the defent
Iclaimed from the fact that when b
/. was pursued he ran so fast that b
'lcould not be overtaken.
Ia support of the theory that he wa
mot In such condition but he could for
sn intent. he cited the fact that after l
/, reireate1 to tho yard, where he was ca
tured, he deliberately reloaded his phi
sol, and when his pursuers came to hill
fired ut them from under his hat.
He claimed that If this man 10 nj
suilty OF murder In the first degree
then no one ever was, or ever viii b
aud capital punishment had better
abolished. If the jury decide by the
verdict that all man has to do Ia
Idrink eight or ton glasses Of beer In To
Iattornoon and kill q man in the evel
ling, thon no mans life Is safe.
In conclusion, he asked the jury
n tdecide the case according to tue Ia
An 10 would be explained TO them by u
\ Vceurt, and according to the evidence
vt6ey had heard II from the stand.
they silo we'd this man TO go free Tn.
would jeopardize their own lives, y
lives OF their families, and that OF !.
community, from the effect OF such
4 verdict
Al He was followed by Andrew :.
Saobo Esq, who made the opsnil
argument for the defense. He said IN
he was not before them 10 defend
murderer, but in defense OF hoy WI
while under the influence OF hqu,
COMMITTED an ac5 for which he ma
the slightest motive.
He commended that o person 10
auilty of murder Of tho first degree,
sdefned oy law his mind must Do ole
and not ciouooi from any cause II
~ was, he could not DO guilty OF
crime. :.
orb He reviewed the testimony viii
..Nhad been given for tho defense, o.
olaimed that 1t all tended 10 show VI
1.-THE prisoner WAS 30 much under
eiptlaancs of liquor that he could oos
=, irresponsible for hia actions, CT kn'
twbas no Was doing.
ysk He claimed that the faos toeehee
Thy Theodore Leach, OF Davis hoidi
,tup bis left hand aud shooting ~
'no s.io cd that he was 30 drunk that
Ibid not know what he was doing, Z
THAT M he shot at himself, he wo'
shoot ut any one that came IN ms W
and also that the fact OF his snootiIg