Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1891-05-16

oror,,o.. lOJectlOn by ST.,
argument .,a question allowed 'a's
the letter. ieS' thai,
The letter was handed to cors
the State and was read by then D'uSe ior
Col. Arnett.-We offer tho =,
evidence. ' 'eIlern
Capt. Dovener-And We obioo.
Witness identified the epy yeI, 70 i.
which the letter had been coa.pe ID
and then over two hours were ,cY"'alled
by counsel in arguing as 10 wIhYn.s,uned
not the letter should go to the c'is at
evidence. Capt Dovener one mo !ufY as
argument for the State. tsI Jeu 'he
ground that there was potbinns the
world to show, in any remote mn u 'Ae
that the letter had been wri,,alef,
DR.. Baird; it was not signed by h.. oy
was not his hand writing; notbiana', Il
been said by witness on the nro,i lsd
day to connect DR.. Baird with il bn.h
the contrary, witness had evn.- 70
stated that DR.. Baird'S Name - -!
mentioned in connection with the Ie,, ="
The letter could not be taken As n. MI
the conversation relating to Dr. Re- a,.yy
for that conversation was an en,t..
separate matter, in no way conpoo.!
with DR.. Baird. Captain Dove
quoted from Mr. Beans testimo.
taken on the previous day, to show n
his theory was the correct one. and p
over the entire recital OF the conve.
ton, which had been written out bv.,
stenOgrapher.
The Court took the letter and re,6 p,
and then listened to the presentatlo, +
the ideas of the defense, Mr.. Somm..
vile opening and Col. Arnett followi,,
These gentlemen took the ground M,
the letter was part of the conye-a
tion-intimately connected with bol
the smallpox case, first talked abo~
and DR.. Baird, who was the subiec, I,
the latter part Of the conversation. a,i
said that a part of a conversation b,,
ing been given TO the jury, the inheyb.
rule was that the jury must have n.
whole of that conversation.
The Court was at first inclined 10 rua
that the letter stood upon exactly ID.
same basis as would, for instance.
Peasants county oil lease, had one bee,
shown to the witness by DIR. Garrior
but after somewhat elaborate argr.
ment by Messrs. Sommerville and c.
Arnett, the latter being particularly o
nacious of the idea that I'll
letter could not be separated
from the conversation, he change
his views, and Mr.. Howard, who co>
for the State, was unable to swerye h.
Court, and the letter was allowed to /, 4
to the jury. This gave rise to moi
after time. In allowing IN
etter to go to the jury, the Court dial
not say in what light it was to ne con.
;idered, and this point was raised oll
he State, and caused another long al
yument. The Court declined TO
forced to lay down the lines, and i
counsel for the defense, saying that a.
,er the letter had been admitted in II
1t had, there was nothing II
prevent them from writing as many I'll
,ers as they might see fit and bringiuI
them up and introducing therI
the Court replied: "Just try that, al
see II there isn't" Finally the lersI
was handed to one OF the jurors, but i
ter a consultation between two or thrsI
Of the jury, Juror Maloney said ,hs
would prefer that counsel read the dyI
lment. 1t was explained TO them lhI
It's contents precluded its being read
the presence OF ladies, and with this Il
the letter was laid as
until this morning.
The cross-eXamination OF Mr.. Batl
was then resumed by Col. Arnett. 81,
was carried on until nearly six O'cI0liI
Asked TO detail anew the conversation
he had with DR.. Baird, in the latter
office, the witness went over 10 agaI-
saying, at the conclusion. that be coui
not be much more definite about IT, A
it made no particular impression On VII
at the time, and was only recalled
subsequent events. He was asked
Col. Arnett IL DR.. Garrison did no. +
clude in his remarks statement @
he would not tolerate violence, blit
witness replied in the negative. IS
did to similar inquiry as to wheihGt
not the Doctor had not said he wa
poor man, and his family was poor
he would not stand it any longer.
ness thought these remarks had
been used. DR.. Garrison said he n
fixed" or would fix him, or "Eol
kill him." or he might have used II +
bination OF any two Of those phn-
but he could not be definite about,
Counsel for the defense then VA,
to know Of the witness IL he had
refused to enlighten them aS to Sha'
expected to testify to, and Mr. D. i
replied that was true. He was asao
he had not said very many people Il
what he expected 10 l@ i
to-tO which the witness replied i1h Il
had said it was possible Others kne'
1t, but he could not have said y
many knew it, because he had no 10,
edge upon that point. The deien" y
asked:
Q.-Why did you refuse to gel. b
you were to testify to? A.-Bec'' p
did not think it was proper
Q-Why did you not think y
procpr? Al simply did, when J 8
in behalf Of the state
! would do il | had been summon,
behalf Of an individual did mol
it proper to let the other side bno'
! had been summoned by the del'
would not have told counsel ior
treated the State as ! would 30
vidual.
Q-Why did you think it rgD'
that, against this defendant? a.
not think IL was right. and q RI
made by counsel for the deieHsr
Sommervile-convinced me tha'
correct. II
Captain Dovener-What vs. ~,
mark? A.-Mr. SommerylI.e -
State would not know anyih''-
10 un1occ I cau ~ IN toll tflI.