The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-03-28
Il Concerns a Conversation With
Gambrell In His ONCE,
Which Took Place Before the Pub
LEGATION OF the announcement.
The Counsel of Both Sides Get Into
Great Wrangle.
The Impeachment of the Witness Sam
Purser-Ellis Young, Of Clinton,
Tes.ihes-He May Be
Impeached.

BRANDON, Miss, March 27.--As soon as
the coort was called to order this morning
the defense read to the court the statement
OF the witness, Mcclure, which had been
reduced TO writing, rs embodying what
the defense proposed to prove by him.
The statement in the witness own words
is as follows
al think II was between and o'clock
on Friday night, April %, 1887, went
into the S,oord and Shield Office and was
introduced TO Mr.. Frederick Gambrell by
Mr.. Addie King, from Yazoo City, who
was then working in the New Mississippidn
Office, but was not present at the converse
ton had with Mr.. Gambrell. Mr.. Gam
brell told me he would be candidate for
State printer, and he would like TO get the
support OF our paper, tho Herald, in his
candidacy. told him l did not know
how that would be, as l had
heard that there would be a move
ment 10 get the State printing
let out by piece work and II that was the
case thought the Herald would support
that Mr. Gambrell then told me he
would have an article in the next issue Of
the Suord and Shield denouncing Col. liam
ilton and the Clarion; that the Clarion had
published communication calling on
Hamilton 10 run for State SENATOR and
that he would hold the Clarion responsible
for Hamilton's prominence in Kinds coun-
" politics. | then told him he ought not
10 hold the Clarion responsible for com
munication. He replied that the Clarion
ArI IN hul "a
publish communication calling on Ham
ilton TO run for office, and he would hold
Il responsible, and II the article he had in
the S,cOrd and Shidd did not bring on n
fight then there would be no fight in them.
replied that II he published such articles
us he had referred 20 he would surely get
a fight Mr.. Gambrell said Il made no
difference 10 him, he was always prepared
and expected difficulty, and threw him
self back with his hands behind him, and
j think showed me the handle OF n pistol.
again cautioned him about such publica-
tons, and said that never knew n man
10 20 out and hunt a fight that he did not
succeed. Mr.. Gambrcll again replied that
he expected difficulty and was prepared
for II.
And in connection with this the defense
further proposed TO prove by other wit.
nesses that similar conversations occurred
from time 10 time between the publishing
OF the article OF April 20 and tho killing,
In which the aspirations OF the deceased
for the place OF public printer were stated
and the declaration made that Hamilton
was In his way and must be got out Of the
way. The court adhered 10 lis ruling ol
yesterday that the testimony Of Mcclure
rs TO conversations preceding the publica
ton Of the article was incompetent, but
reserved liz decision as 10 conversations
after the publication OF the article until
such conversations shall be in evidence
The Jury then, at 9:45 o'clock, was brought
into the COURTROOM and the first witness
placed on the stand.
JACK HALL, ooLoHED,
testified In impeachment OF the witness
Sam Purser, as did the witnesses, Kerr and
Willis, on yesterday.
Cross-examined-IIa never been con
victed OF any infamous crime.
"What Is Il you were tried for in the
Federal court2"
This question was objected TO by the de
Tense, aud the jury and witness having
been withdrawn argument followed. i
was developed that the witness had beer
tried and found guilty Of robbingth mails
but that the verdict was set aside by ths
court and that ON a second trial he was nc
quilted. At least dozen short spceche
were made ON the point involved, which
was enlarged beyond the scope OF the par
ticular question asked by the statement o
Judge Brame that the State proposed q
show that the defendant was ON the polio,
force OF Jackson and was discharged be
.rcausc OF the criminal allegations agains
him. The argument finally degcnemte'
into dcsultory discussion between coun
\ eel. the court and the law books. Tn
ruling was that the witness might be i'm
pcached by the production Of the rocor'
n Of his trial, but In no other way, an'
that further inquiry Of the wit
ness concerning that could not be made
no having answered that he had been con
ylcted. The court said, however that h'
might be Intercepted touching his con
nection with the police force and his dis
charge, as that was matter within th
discretion Of the court. The jury and th
witness we're recalled and the examination
of the witness pro ceedcd with. To th
inquiries Of the State he answered rs fo
lows
Was on the police force IN Jackson fiy
or six years ago. Has not been on u sine,
Got arrested and that relieved him iron
duty Could have gone back, but did no
desire 10 do 90. Resigned because thcr
Was charge against him and he was pu
In Jail:
"what was the charge that you wcr
arrested upon7"
The defense objected 10 this question
and contended that II was In conflict wit
the ruling Of the court. The State insiste
on making the witness tell the charge, an
much Of the ground covered by the pr
yious argument was traycrscd over agaii
some impatience was manifested by NJ
McIaurin at Judge Brames persistence.
and a reply by Judge Brame 10 an EXPIRE
sion used BY him TO the court In argumcn
, came near prccipitatlng a collision. Nj
McIaurin approached Judge Brane, lea
ing his position and passing In front Of q
Jury III bo was within few feet OF hln
when his progress was arrested by, u
sheriff. There wcro calls OF order, mn
s'take your seats" from Judge Mayo
and Others, and when everything was qui
the judge expressed the opinion that q
exact purport Of Mr.. Iaurin's cxprcssic
was not understood by Judge Bnmc. Mu
ual explanations followed, and compile