The comet. (Johnson City, Tenn.) 1884-1916, 1891-08-06

Wo wheeled cart. DR.. Baker was on |
horseback. We passed somebody as
We went back in the evening Didn't
know them. No cross examination.
N. NJ. Parker, next witness, testified |
I live near Montgomery's switch.
Am acquainted with both DR.. Baker
and Mrs. Gilmer. DR.. Baker frequent
ly visited Mrs. Gilmer's. / was work
ing for Wyndham Gilmer. That was
in 1888 or 1889. Sometimes he
wouldn't miss many days in the week
visiting there. l worked there about
thirty five days. Don't know exactly
the number of times DR.. Baker visited
there during the time l was there.
A rule was issued against w. T,
Baldwin, witness, for not being in at
tendance. Mr.. Baldwin gave an ex-
cuse, took the stand and testified;
l live in Abingdon Am furniture
dealer and undertaken. Remember
the death of Mrs, Baker. lived here
then, buried Mrs. Baker. Was APP
preached for my services the day she
died. / buried her at the Baker grave
yard, about five miles west Of Abing-
don. | had known Mrs. Baker about
twenty years, Buried her in wood
casket, poplar, with mahogany finish.
Here the defence objected, and Hon.
John A. Buchanan read authority on
tho point of examining the body by ex
parte proceedings, He alleged that
the defence knew nothing about the
exhumation and autopsy as conducted
by the Commonwealth, that no Motif
cation had been served on the defence,
that for the examination the coroner
had not appointed a jury, nor had he
issued warrant for such proceedings
], G. Wysor, Esq. speaking for the
State, said that the court could not
consider the gentleman's objections
without evidence that the Common
wealth had not conducted the autop
sy according to law, that the state.
ments alleged by the gentleman were
not supported by evidence. He fur
ther thought that the examination Of
the body was made in due conformity
to law, that it was made by the Com
monwealth as a disinterested party.
States Attorney, Judge Hutton
said that as he understood it, the ex
humation and autopsy of the body o
Mrs. Baker was made by the Common
wealth, that it was seeking the merit
/ Of the case, not as an interested party
but as the instrument of justice anC
the law and without malice towar,
the defense. 1t was for purposes o
justice alone. Mr.. Buchanan re-dis
cussed the point, denying that sal
proceedings were conducted in accord
ance with law. He alleged that tn
: coroner had no warrant that, h
had not appointed jury to be presen
and witness the examination, tina
: they went out in the field alone ant
: took up the body ex parte, and will
out the proper legal authority.
The whole ground of the disput
rests in the question of ex parte pre-
ceedings, the defense claiming that tn
State had no legal right to make th
exhumation and autopsy for purpose
Of evidence in the case without thei
knowledge, and without their side be
', ing represented in the autopsy.
, Here the counsel for the common
wealth differed from the defense, an
held that the State had a right t
make an ex parte examination Will
Q carrying out the laws of the State as
disinterested party.
Mr.. Wysor held all the time tha
the court should proceed to tax
r evidence and in case such evidenc
q established that the commonwealth
had proceeded unlawfully i
> the elimination then it wa
= time to object to the al
topsy as evidence in the case that tn
court could not rule such evidence OF
on the mere statements of the defens
The question is an important one, an
: the counsel on both sides asked fc
: time to look up authority respecting
The court took recess for this pu
. pose at IL 20 a. m.
At two o'clock p. m. the couns,
e will submit authority and discuss til
v question, when it will be know
e whether the autopsy Of the Stat
+ chemist is to play any part in til
It evidence Of the case.
d This was an unexpected point {
y far as the spectators were concerne'
r. and it created quite a sensation an