The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1888-02-15


| to warrant his conviction Of the crime
I'VE expect to show that a murder was
c. mmitted IN the early morning in the Vi
| cinity of where the body was found on the
beach. That the wounds on the body were
! sufficient to kill, and did cause death. These
facts can be established. Whether the facts
which follow will connect the defendant
| with the murder beyond a reasonable and
| moral certainty, remains to be determined :;
if so, he must be found guilty of murder,
otherwise he must 90 acquit.
THE JURY.
The following comprise the jury:
| William Byrd John w Teeple,
| Dedrich Entelman Jacob Friedman,
Joseph y. Lee, Archibald McAllster,
John NJ Doty John $. Bordley,
! Robert j. Dukes, John d. Bowling.
WITNESSES FOR THE STATE.
At the conclusion OF the Solicitor-G Gen
erals remarks the following witnesses were
! sworn and retred from the court room:
Dr. T. b. Chisholm, A. Minis, Esq, j. n.
! johnson, Barney White alias Barney Keys,
| John Wright, proprietor Of the Seaside Pa
| vilion, Charles b. Westcott, j. c. MCGOWAN,
John G. Butler, +. Muhleberg, Lucien Mich
! elias, +. Dwyer. George BOSsell, f.. Marmel-
stein, Georgia Mills, John Green,
Richard Higgins and K. w. Bennett.
DIR. CHsHoLM's TESTIMONY.
DR.. Chisholm was the first witness. He
testified that on July IA he was called upon
! by Coroner Dixon to examine the body Of
Geo Smith at his late residence on Bay street.
| He found confused wound on the left side
of the head and bruises on the left check
and left side of the neck. Also a wound on
the right chest. He found coagulated blood
under the scalp, the brain congested, a
wound over the left temple having frac-
tured the skull. This was the mortal
wound evidently made with some blunt
| instrument. One rib on the right side was
broken The witness did not examine the
lungs closely, as he was satisfied of the
cause of death. He was not acquainted
with the dead ma. DIR. Dunn and several
| his examination
On cross-examination by Attorney
Richards the witness went into greater de-
tail, explaining from professional stand
point why it was hardly possible that the
! death could have been theresult of drowning.
| If the man had been IN water in life his lungs
would have filed with water, but as he was
dead the lungs were inert. His Judgment
was that the man was dead before he was
| in the water Pressed TO swear positively
| that the man did not come to his death by
| drowning the Doctor declined to do So The
! body, he said, had evidently been in the
water but a short time. He judged that
the wound in the temple could not have
| been made by either knife or a blow from
| the fist, but by some blunt instrument. The
| lacerated wound over the eye in the left
temple had caused death On being asked if
the brain was not normal, the witness replied
! that it was congested. The base of the
skull was fractured and death must have
ensued shortly after or Immediately upon
| the dealing of the blow.
In answer TO redirect interrogatory. the
witness said he was only giving his profess
sional opinion that life was extinct when
the body was placed in the water, otherwise
there would have Teen a greater volume of
| water in and oozlng from the lungs.
MR.. MINIS ON THE STAND.
Mr.. A. Minis testified that on the night of
July IL, in company with Mr. j. N. John
| son, he went down to T'y bee Island, stopping
| at the Ocean House. On the morning of
July 10, after an early breakfast, and in
company with Mr.. johnson and wife and
| Mr.. Higgins, they took wagonette to go
to the South End for a couple Of hours fish
ing. Between G:15 and $50 o'clock they
discovered the body ON the beach 1t was
| clad only in pantaloons, with suSpenders,
| undershirt and socks 1t had been in the
water. The first impression of the party
was that it was case of drowning. A
| closer examination showed it to have been
| death by violence, as there were wounds
on the head, face and neck. "While
| was examining the body" Mr.
Minis said, Mr.. johnson, who
had gone a little distance away found pair
of shoes We compared them with the dead
mans feet and found that they correspondent
to them,n and one of the Shoes witness
thought, was fitted to his foot. The party
then began to look about for some further
Eevidences of the murder, and found at a
point where the hard and soft sand met,
evidences of struggle and blood upon the
I sand. They also saw trail as If "a body
had been dragged TO the waters edge
| There were parallel lines as if made by the
! heels of person dragged in the sand, or as
| if from the impress of the elbows, with a
blur running between the parallel lines:
this trail led to point where the water had
oblterated further mark, and the body
which had been in the water, was left on
the beach not far distant from the end of
the trail but farther to the left
FOOTPRINTS IN THE SAND.
Footprints corresponding to the shoes found
on the beach, were accompanied by the
| footprints of another person; the footprints
| of the latter We're larger and broader. The
! shoe had evidently been large one, broad
at the toe and very broad across the ball of
the foot. 1t was a peculiar foot such as
| would not soon be fOrgutten: il was
| evidently broader than the sole so that the
print of the upper showed in the sand,
| These tracks came together from the direc-
ton of Wrght's Seaside Pavilion to the
point Of struggle, were traced to the soft
sand with the trail, and We're again found
at intervals as having returned in the
direction of the Pavilion. The witness, in
connection with MesSrs. Johnson and Hig-
! gins, took accurate measurements of the
large footprint at different points, with a
reed, marking the breadth by knife
notches. lie explained the manner of
taking the measurements with the reed
which he had preserved. The large track
| had that peculiar shape that once examined
would not soon lie forgotten. Witness
| further testified that on July ii he meas
! ured CassidyS shoes at the p lice barracks
and found they correspondent very closely to
! the track accompanying the smaller one
| made by the dead man. The length Of the
shoe was the same, the length of the sole
was the same, the length of the instep from
| the heel to the toe was the same, and the
only discrepancy was that the imprint OF
| the heel in the sand was a little longer than
the actual length of the heel of the shoe,
but the witness explained that the impress
| of the entire shoe correspondent accurately
| with the impression in the sand and that
what impressed witness deeply was that
there was a similarity of the sand adhering
| to CasSidy's shces and that of the beach sand
where the body was found.
AN EXPERT IN SHOES.
Witness further testified that since that
4 l. l..