The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-03-15


, ilton?'
Redirect Witness was shown photo.
graphs Of the bridge and surroundings;
one standing at Purser's cato would have
clear view Of the bridge unobstructed ex-
cept by few awning posts. This is
much nearer point TO tho bridge than the
witness house Is to the same. Doesn't
think TINT the carnage could have
gotten to the postoffice from the bridge
starting after the first or second lull of the
shots, before the shooting was over. A
man could have run off Immediately after
the firing before witness got there. Met
no one when he came from the bridge
alone. After going back and returning
with defendant and Lea does not remem-
Der TO have met any one but Stewart.
After refreshing his memory from reading
testimony before the chaicellor he states
that he first saw the man Dunning at q
point midway between the approaches 10
the bridge. He was in the middle OF
the street and witness was on the south
sidewalk about fifty feet distant. After he
saw the man he walked from half way the
block Of the government building 10 the
bridge, spent half a minute there, then
walked with defendant 10 the southern
chord and then ran back ON southern foot
walk half way up the block, which occu-
pied probably one minute and half or
two minutes estimated from the time II
would take one 10 walk that distance.
When he came back the carriage had left
the pos,onicc. Did not hear carriage
run Of the bridge nor did not hear horses
feet Can hear such sounds from his
house.
Re-cross examined Carriages running
across that bridge had ceased 10 attract his
attention. II man had run off the bridge
with the man he saw he would have been
IN as plain view ms the man seen.
Recess till 2 o'clock.
W. II. HARRIS.
for State: Was magistrate last May. Held
an inquest officially ON the body OF Rode
rick tiambrcll The pistol shown him
identified ~ the pistol brought 90 me on
the examination Of said case, which had
blood on IL nj the time, and tho newspaper
in which IL was wrapped had blood on IL.
The paper shown him no could not say
WIS the paper in which the pistol was
wrapped-he thinks the paper had moro
blood ON II than the paper shown. Al
brecht brought the pistol and he kept Il
until his evidence before the chancellor
on the habeas corpus Trial. The pistol was
shown on the habcas corpus trial There
was no blood ON H. The scabbard shown
Ine was delivered 20 me In the coroner's
inquest. would take this 10 be the scab-
bard and belt delivered 10 the coroner's
jury from Ierger Stewart. The pistol
shown had blood on the barrel and cylin.
der
Cross examination. There was spln.
ter said 10 have been knocked of the post
81 the rail fence, north Of the footbridgc,
when the conflict occurred delivered 10 the
jury, and i cannot say what has become
of the splinter. know that II WIS deiy-
cred TO tho jury AZ part Of the evidence in
the case, but l cannot say what has become
al H. took possession Of the several nrti-
rles, bullets and pistols. lie thinks that
The splinter vns given by Chilcs TO one Of
the coroncr's jury.
Mr. John Martin, attorney for the pros.
ccuiion, was before the corOncr's jury aud
took down the evidence.
Redirect l have made search in my
Office for the splinter referred 10. The
pistols now in court are the Same rs those
shown on the habcas corpus trial lie de-
scribcd the character and calibcr OF the
pistols.
The examination q
coi- W. l.. NuCESr,
begun ON yesterday, was resumed. The
sum and substance oi his conversation
With hamilton nj witness Office WINS that
Hamilton would no, notice the offensive
article published in the Sford and Shield
! told Mr.. J. II. Gambrcll that Col. lIamil.
ton WIS not candidate for the senate.
upd that he Ollamiltonl would not notice
the article OF the 2.ld Of April, in the
.Sgonf aud Nkh Mr.. J. H. Gambrcll
told ne that nothing morc would be- said
IN S,r0rd and Nlicld ON tile subject Of his
candidacy for the senate. ~ he was not a
candidate When | Gw Hamilton after
lie was shot, thinking hc was dying M
entered the defendants room, said, "My
God" OF some such expression. Defend.
ant replied: "Billy, have kept my prom
isc. lie fined ON me In my carriagc"
WitncS received no communication from
defendant NJ his counsel until the next day.
Az this point the defendant In person
nrosc in court and said: IL understand
II u u personal privilege Of mina IN object
90 not Ia what transpircd between Col.
hugcnt-he being my aitomey-and my
tolf. ! am perfectly willing for every
thing thai has ever been said between me
and Col. Nugent 10 be given In evidence
] waive any right Of mine on that score.
Rc-crces--ilayc known defendant since
1919, when We were school boys together.
We have been associated IA client and at
torney since 1874. and have mover been
more intimate even with blood kin than
with Hamilton My explanation II what
] said In my examination of Hamilton q
excitement was that Col. Hamilton never
expressed any amnesty prior to tho kill
ing against II. u. tiambncll, but lac stated
10 me that he did not believe that X u.
,'ambnrll wrote the offensive article but
that he believed that his iaiher, Mr.. J. u.
Gambrcll, wrote the said article.
The prosecution has ELECTED from you
The testimony that there might be some
diiliculty arising out 81 this article Now
iiale 10 the Jury any word or act of Ham.
ilion that led you 20 suppose that a Diff
Guilty might arise out Of u; aud II YOU arr
not able o. state any give the Jury fully
Your reasons Tor and such apprrhcnsions
More from the character of the article
thnn anything else, ! noticed excitement
In Hamilton. lie told me that his buN
ncse Affairs and his family relations for.
babe his having any difficulty, and he
could not Afford having one aud that he
did mol intend 10 have ono.
What relation did Hamilton have 10 the
penieniiary bond suitg
Objected 10 and question withdrawn
after extended argument. Have known
Hamilton from boyhood. Were nj colleg,
together from 1913 10 1855. Wcn ire
guently together aiicrward. Moved Il
Jackson In 1872 when they were together
II. Il. l. a.. A.