The Asheville citizen. [volume] (Asheville, N.C.) 1885-1889, 1886-03-28
JOYCE MURDER TRIAL.
SIXTEENTH DAYS PRO-
.cEEDINGS.
ARGUMENT CONTINUED.
FRIDAY, March, 10Th.

must say the last word for the pris-
oners. I regret this task did not fall
to others, for with the worry have
undergone, / am physically unable
todo well the part assigned me. t.
iconsalt my own feelings, would
be willing to allow this argIlhent to
zstop here; you have. doubtless reach
led decision alread y. Yet tllis nsy
j not be so, andsif one word or trough
from me may tend n remove any
doubt that may remain in your
minds, it is my duty To add it.
[ came to this case convinced Il
igreat and foul wrong has been done
these men. / do not wish ID mis-
lead you, [ could not mislead this
intelligent jury.
You see this case enveloped i'll al
most impenetrable clouds from the
beginning. S.nce the very hour Of
the fire, the stream Of Circumstance
and glspicion has been polluted.
How do they startF They go to
the burning and instead of looking
around the house, in the garden and
mellow ground they go to the
mountains, and laurel patch to hunt
tracks; there they find tracks they
run them until they are run in the
ground and in confusion Why not
look arond the house for tracks and
seeif this was accident or murder.
Ifthey had weighed this matter as
intelligent men, if in search of the
guilty instead of Bill Jones and son,
they would have given US great as
sistance.. The State argues this as
if we were defending the guilty
man, and it was our duty to prove
an accident. We do no such thing;
we are authorized to do nothing of
the kind. We admit for sake of ar
gument, a grievous murder; it is the
States duty to prove these men arc
guilty. Had we admitted a case of
murder, the court would still tell
you, you-must determine whether
it was murder or accident. I hope it
may prove to have been an. acci-
dent, but whether 1T was or not, our
views could have no effect. You
must determine this upon the evil.
dence offered by State.
Had you gore there to look for
| ltle frnfh, as kkaest zsitizens, without
rev ard or hope of reward, or aid of
detective hoping for big fees, you
would have carefully examined the
condition of affairs; would have
weighed we'll all the attending Cir
cumstances; the reversed position of
old man Joyce, the change of posi-.
tion of shovel, &C., and then have
determined whether it was not the
result of accident. If you had
thought the old man died in a
struggle, in defense of life, you, as
honest men, would have looked for
a reason and for the guilty. Col.
Lusk argued the men went there to
kill Mary Rice, and had to kill
Others; but as Mr.. Douglas Carter
says, they went with a determines
ton to kill the whole family; if Bill
Jones was so afraid ofa prosecution,
as to kill Mary Rice, he would have
Egone to kill her, and not expect to es
capedetection by the Joyces. Can any
one doubt he went there as Douglas
Carter says, and I argue with him,
to kill the whole family? True, a
gigantic crime, but if they went to
kill Rice, they went to kill the whole
f,mily. If they went to kill the
family, wouldn't they have attack
ed the strongest first2 Wouldn't t
hey have killed old man Joyce
first? After dispatching him, it
would be easy to manage the others.
Can there be any doubt mere?
You may send any two criminals to
commit any deed of violence, and first
assault will be on stongest party at
tackled. State says the old man had a
Estruggle, seized the shovel, fought for
dear life, and fell with his head where
his feet ought to have been. Why that
struggle? There was silver and gold in
| that household, Luther witness, a
lew days before, paid him money.
Don't let the Solicitor say the old man
hid his money out and therefore 1t was
NOT found IN the ashes. No money
found in the ashes, they were sifted :
Don't you see clue to this matter?
Wouldn't impartial Investigation have
thought the robbers watched around the
old man to learn where was the money
after getting it and in struggle killed
him. Robbers could not afford to burn
| up the house first, that would defeat
their object. Robbers had to arouse
the old man, and in the struggle he
was stricken down. If there is any
reasonable hypothesis consistent with
the innocense of these men you must
take it and acquit. Robbery is reas-
enable, if so you must decide this case
for prisoners. Col. y. argued that the
shovel stood in the corner the old
man took his shovel and fought for his
life. / concede FOR. the sake of the
argument there was a fight. It was a
fight with the robbers who went there,
taroused the old man, took his money,
and then killed him.
I say ifthat be SO, then Bill Jones
and his son are not guilty If you
view this case from reasonable
standpoint, you will say that the
parties who did the killing, went to
kill all, and to rob. Is my theoyy
REASONABLE? Col Hoyt said that
near the three cbestnnts, there vas
/ Gvifln14ca that the ftnf|r Ia q tanned