The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-01-23

reached the gutter some one, from near his
grocery, fired brick at him, striking him
in the back OF the neck. This brick (which
came from where the crowd of studentS
were assembled) is alleged to have knocked
Sapps down, yet not one Of his friends
stirred to render assistance. Sapp arose,
pulled his pistol out and according to the
witness, began firing through the front
door at Palmer and his sister, who were
seen standing in the rear door.
This was all very well, and perhaps
Mr. Cohen was sincere in its relation, but
further investigation disclosed its utter
unreliablity The reporter went over to
the Palmer house to study the shots and
learn, ii possible, the point from which
they were fired. The house sits right on
the southeast corner OF two streets, di-
rectly opposite Cohen's store. The rear
door is very narrow, too narrow to contain
two persons abreast, unless both were
very small. Were one OF tho persons in
rear OF the other, a person standing at
the point from which the shot was fred
could not SEQ him. Palmer is alleged to
have said that he and his sister were
there, his sister in front, when she was
shot. At to the shooting, only one sign
OF bullet is visible on the wall, and that
was grazing shot, the course OF which
was too plainly apparent to be mistaken.
1t was fired from point just n few feet
back OF the rear southeast corner OF the
house. To have reached that point Sapp
must have run along the sidewalk to the
east OF the house fully thirty feet after
crossing the street. No witness was
| found, after the fact was related, who
would say otherwise than that Palmer
and his sister ran TO the rear OF the
house, followed by Sapp, who fired his
three shots in rapid succession after reach
ing the point specified, which is an open
ing in the fence, made by some Of the
palings having fallen down.
As before stated, Sapp could not have
been firing at the boy when the girl was
struck. The girl preceded Sapp, but was
| herself preceded several feet by her
brother. The two ran through that open
! ing in the fence and TO the back door.
! The testimony OF some colored witnesses
is that the boy did not enter the house at
! all, but continued his fight through the
| yard on 20 The barber-shop. Whether he
| did or not is immaterial. but il is believed
| lac did, since he was not there 10 pick his
sister up after she was shot. When the
! girl jumped up into the door, she turned
to see whether Sapp had followed. As
! she did 50, a shot struck her in the
| abdomen. Turning slightly, another
caught her in the thigh. The third and
last shot, or one OF them, passed above the
! door, MS already described. Unless Sapp
was bowling drunk-which is little pallia-
! ton in the eyes OF the law-he could not
! possibly have mistaken the girl for the
! boy, when her whole form must have been
in full view TO have received the shot as il
did.
Now for ihatiron weight alleged 10 have
been hurled at Sapp, and which Cohen
says was four pound weight, without
! going further than 10 say was missing,
| without being able 10 trace il 90 Palmer or
| anyone else. The original row between
| the two occurred in the rear room OF the
/ grocery, and the weights are all kept in
| the front When Palmer first entered the
! grocery lac conieSsedly had no idea Of be-
| ing called upon 10 use any weapon, and
I Cohen admits lac did no; pass through or
I enter the front room again, being elected
| from the rear side door.
Judge lladden, a. q supplemental pro-
| ceeding In the case, entered up fine Of
| $50 against Palmer for assault and battery.
I This was done on the evidence before the
court. The grand jury has now an inter.
es,ing case before IL. The girl is in about
/ the same condition as on the afternoon Of
| the shooting.