Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-05-16

HtaISa WIS. Bhlu uip UOt hhk BtT VI ituc ~
tempt OF Balm 20 assault her occurred in 1857
or 1883. or whether II was year or two be-
fore the day on WHICH she told Der mother.
Witness said she wss twelve years old on
July 3. 1888 ealle stated that after the first
shot was cred aud before the second shot
Carleton stepped bsck two steps. II was
not true, she ssid.. that he did not
move during the interval between the
two shots. This contradcts the testimony
oi Mrs. Marks aud Percy Marks. While
all the commotlon was going on she never
moved from her place on the porch; she
was too frightened to move. She stated also
that the facts and circumstances OF the shoot
ing bad been frequently discussed at home
IN her hearing by the different members OF
her family and 10y others. Cribs also is In
direct contradiction OF her mothers and her
brothers testimony She said that her
father and Percy several times made measure
menis and fixed the positions OF the differ
ent persons present during the tragedy. Her
mother witnessed some OF these MEASURE
ments.
Sallie's answers were given with evident
frankuess She Is a slender. quiet-looklng
Girl. rather tsll for her are, and appeared 10
decided advantage white on the witness
stand.
K. w. Bishop was sworn aud testified that
he was az Bain's residence on March 9th,
the day OF the homicide. az foreman OF The
cOronef's jury. Or. Nicholson was the eorO-
ner and the physician on the occasion. lie
described the wounds on Bain's body,
stating that the face wound was pFobed, out
the one on the breast only exsmlned as TO Its
location. lie identified the probe. said that
II penetrated the wound TO depth OF aoout
"A inches. and that 20 far as he could ascertain
by working the Jaw be did not think the
iawbone was broken. The witness iurtner
stated that ne was at the Marks residence on
the Friday otter the shooting and saw traces
o, blood. beginning about I've feet from the
well aud leadlsg around the end OF tne mouse
snd around the fence until II reacned Tee'
where there was puddle OF blood about rs
large rs witnesses two hands, or larger. The
tendency Of this testimony Is 10 diSprove the
statements OF witnesses for tue prosecution
as 10 the place where Balm stood when he
was shot and to cOrroDOrate that oil witnesses
for the deience.]
AFTERNOON SESSION.
When the court assembled after the din.
ner recess to-day II was found that one oil
the rumors given above had good founda'
ton. Counsel for the defence temporarily
Withdrew. the witness Bishop ana placed
UPON tue AlAUU III NEti fpbs 'NH'"NNHf ~
Richmond, who WAS examined san expert
with regard to Bans wound, especially the
one In the face, with view 20 disprOve DIR.
Nicboson's conclusions concerning the same.
DR.. Johnston stated that he bad been pro-
fessor OF anatomy in The Medical College OF
Vlrpinia for three years. He described the
construction OF the lower law, illustrating
his description by means OF n human skull.
He was then told OF DR.. NIcholson's testi-
mony with reference TO the wound 10 Bans
face: OF Or. Nicholson PROBING that wound
VITA view TO asceTainlng the probable d.
rcction Of the bail, aud OF his expectation to
ind the aperture OF exit on the opposite
side OF the neck. DR.. Johnston was then
asked to give his expert opinion as TO whether
the ball making such wound was bred rom
behind or from in front OF the person re.
ceiying It, and replied that the ball must
have been fred either from the 'front.' or
slightly to the left OF the front, depend
ing upon the position OF the lace receiV-
ing the wound. The blackening OF the isce
bv toe powder indicated nothing out the
nearness OF the wespon from which the shot
was fired, aud he could not conceive how a
bail fired from behind could have made such
wound. A description Of Bain's attitude,
a il was testified by witnesses for the defence
to have been after no advanced upon Carleton
Marks after tho first shot having been
furnished Dr. Johnston. he stated that The
ball Tins fired would baye taken the course
indicated bv the probe, and IL would not
have made any difference whether Balm was
advancing or standing still Ut the time II his
attitude had been the same. II the shot had
been fred from behind the chances are that
the ball would have glsuced of from the
smooth hard, rounded surfsce OF the jaw
bone aud would have injured only the soft
parts.
DR.. Nicnolson's poor little probe got aD-
other whack 10y Dr.. JohDston's statements
that probings for two and half inches could
not have established the wound In the Jaw
as fatal when the person so wounced nad at
the same time been wounded above the left
nipple, "a there are no vital parts within two
and a hall inches from the surface Of the
jaw.
when he answered the interrogat0ries OF the
prosecution the question as 10 whether the
person frlng the shot was Tlght-handed or
left handed had not suggested Itself to him,
as right handed persons 50 largely prepon.
derale. Ordinarily that question would
only arise where the wounds we're self-in-
llcted.
Or. Johnston did not think II probable
that a shot fired from behind (as supposed
bv Dr. Nicholson) by a left-handed person
would have made such wound. III Bsiu's
BODY had been sharply twisted around It
might have modified the course OF the ball 4;
nor did he think It would have made any
material diference in the nature Of the
wound whether the person firing that shot
was rIght.handed or lelt,handed II the shot
had been fred while Balm was advancing on
Carleton Marks.
On redirect examination DR.. Johnston
stated he did not think that 1t made any dif-
ference in tue direction OF the ball whether
il was fred by Tight-hOnded or left
handed man.
Dr. Johnston was on the stand for more
than three hours, and the court shortly after
his exsminstisn closed adjourned for The
dav. There was no night session tonight,
owing 10 the serious iudisp0Sltion OF Judge
Riyes, who only by dlnt OF great eXertiou
and st the cost OF much physical suffering re-
NAMED on the bench to-day.