The Asheville citizen. [volume] (Asheville, N.C.) 1885-1889, 1886-03-28

lIOV AAAA AOGa VI AkAO@1Oys = VII psA
one, even among those who come
here to laugh at unjust reflections
upon the ladies' Of Che stricken fam
| lily, dare say that Bill Jones went
there to rob for money! Why
should Bill and Frank divide. the
booty? They lived at the same
place, and, according to State, were
going home together, and could di-
vide afterwards. Testimony, how
ever, is that from above three chest
nuts, on the mountain, tracks divid-
ed, going down md up The moun-
tain, down to Haywood others esse-
wfeie showing that the murderers
belonged to different families. i his
accounts for division Of booty Just
befure their sepae alton. Don { for>
get that whoever committed this
murder. stole the money at the
house and afterwards divided it;
and say whether defendants could
have been the guilty party. The
Solicitor will argue, if these men
could go and murder, they would
rob; hut he can not convince
you that these men. raised
as they were and have been
one scarcely q years of age.
could go and commit sach
deed for robbery. New in crime,
don't you know they were seized
with indescribable terror, the very
minute after committing the mur-
der, il they did it. and seeing the
blood dripping from their victims,
can it be possible that they stopped
to hunt for money or booty? that
they stopped at chestnuts to look at
the fire, or divide booty? Never,
never If they had been stepped in
crime since childhood, had been
used to sight of blood and bloody
victims, they might have hunted for
money, but being unused to such,
these men could not have stopped.
Ifyou can find reasonable hypoth-
ises consistent with innocence of
these men, your duty, as 1 have said
is to acquit. Is not the view | have
stated a reasonable and more than
probable one? Think a moment.
Suppose after these men are in their
graves, some one back in the noun
tains in Haywood, or elsewhere,
makes dying confession of muir
dering Joyces, for their money, in
connection with others, who also
confess, and deliver up clothing and
other property of the family. Would
you feel that the confessions of these
parties in the mountains were false?
Could you say that the testimony of
the jail birds, and others testifying
in this case, had so firmly establish.
ed the guilt of the defendants az to
disprove the truth of the supposed
confessions Would you not realize
that you had given to she dows of
suspicion the weight and force of
substantial proof? Heaven help
you, gentlemen, to escape su:h
an unhappy dilemma.
State charged that Bill Jones had
a motive to commit this crime. Now
as to motive: All acts follow motive.
There must be motive for every
piece of human conduct; sometimes
acts are out of proportion to motive,
owing to disordered mlnds &C., but
whether motive be great or small,
the act must be shown to have fol-
lowed the motive, or proof of motive
is worthless. State admits the weak
ness of this feature of the case. They
say, Bill Jones was so aroused by
the Rice matter, that he and Frank
determined to kill her to prevent
her testifying against his son. Tes-
timony shows Jones had been salts
fed with Rice matter long before
the killing. -
Col. Lusk asked if Jones was sat-
isfied by Jonathan Morgan, why did
he run to Tiny Howard, and Others,
while as a fact, he saw Tiny and
others before his last talk with Nor
gan, VIII IN he became satisfied.
Douglass Carter says, no matter
what nature of offense was, the question
is, how did Jones regard it. l accept
this. Col Lusk said, offense was pen
itentiary offense, but he does not tell
you that Jones SO knew or thought.
The proof is, he did not. Then Jones
must be treated as having regarded the
matter small affair.
Again why should Jones destroy
Mary Rice, who knew not the boy and
couldn't identity him, and leave Jona-
than Morgan who knew the fact, and
Collier Morgan, who knew the boy?
Jones couldn't have thought that to
destroy this woman, would be to de-
stroy the evidence. Is this not SO 2
Jonathan swears, he told Jones that he,
Jonathan, could not identify the boy,
but did not tell him Collier could. No
evidence, ithat Jones knew Collier
could identify the boy; he never heard
that Collier could, and consequently,
when Jonathan Morgan assured him
he could not and would not identity
him, he was satisfied.
State was surprised at Bill Jones'
statement on the staiId, admitting
all it had been charged he had said
to States witnesses about this mats
Ter; that he was uneasy, was aroused
angry, &c. Why surprised? Jones
told the truth and it cannot hurt
him. He heard from VIC Candler,
on the 9th February through Tly-
lor, ,thatifthe boy could be identified,
the case could be made out, and if
cot intn court. It might ruin his