The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1891-05-16

about Your location at the. time Of ii
shooting, and what you knew about 1t
A,-Not to my knowledge.
Q.-Didn't you tell Danied CrimbI
that you were in the back part Of th
house when the shooting occurred, an
that you heard the two shots, and thu
you knew nothing about it'll ate
ward?
A.-No, sir, I did not.
By Doyenor: Q.-Who is Dani'
A,|He is the man who drives a
yeast cart.
W. G. Beans was recalled.
Q-CRn you recsll exactly when tn
con versation with DR.. Garrison Occur
red?
A.-Not' more than yesterday; abou
the middle OF January.
Ole said he was abused and terri
bly, abused, and showed you q lette
that he had received. Nov, Mr.. Beans
is this the letter you referred TOT
Witness looked at the letter, and sail
1t was the letter,
Captain Dovener here took the letter
and be and Prosecutor Ho wGid read it
ALL ABOUT a LETTER.
Colonel Arnett asked that the letter
be offered In evidence.
Captain Dovsner objected. "This let.
ter cannot 20 in evidence here. It Is
not from Dr.. Baird and is not shown TO
be in DR.. BaiEd's handwriting. To offer
letter here on cross.examinati0n which
can have no bearing upon what the
witness eaid about Dr. Garrison is i'm.
proper, and it cannot be put in evil
denCe.
The court said it was part OF the
subject matter Of the conversation. and
il that conversation goes in, the matters
that were incidental thereto and that
which led up TO it should 30 in,
The Captain made long argument
againstadmittiDg the letter on heground
that the statements concerning the letter
were all made by the witness and not by
DR.. Garrison, and that there ia and has
been nothing to show that DR.. Baird had
anything to do with tho letter.
The court asked II DR.. Garrison had
read the letter or in conversation had
repeated the words OF the letter, would
/ it not go in as part OF the converse
ton? Is the letter not part OF the
conversation when DR.. Garrison hands
it 10 the witness 10 read instead OF read
ing or repeating 1t to him?
Captain Doyener went on to say that
the contents OF the latter is not q part OF
the subject matter and not q part OF the
conversation, but one Of the incidents
that lead up to the conversation. He
further said that the letter can do moth
ing to help the prisoner because no
words or epithets are IN law justiIica-
ton for the crime for which DR.. CARR.
aon is charged. Also that there is no
reference made 10 DR.. Baird in Connec.
ton with the letter even in the CONVEX
sation, much lesa in evidence.
The court said 1t was under the i'm
preston that DR.. Garrison mentioned
Dr. Baird directly in connection with
the letter, but he found from the evi.
dence Of the witness that Mr.. Howard
was right in his statement that the letter
was not mentioned in the conversation.
Mr.. soMMERvILLR SPEAKS.
Mr.. Sommerville said the letter Is a
part OF the conversation, because the
conversation came up from the smallpox
case, and the letter was read by one oil
the parties TO the conversation, and that
the letter thereby became part Of the
conversation. 1t is the straightforward
proposition that where part Of con.
yersation goes in, all that conversation
must 90 in. The state must bear in
mind that they opened this door by
bringing witness here to show that DR..
Garrison made threats aRainst DR.. Baird,
and now they object to the whole OF the
conversation going TO the jury.
The court said that 1t desired TO say
that this language was communicated
by the prisoner to the witness, and no
matter who was the author Of the
letter, II this Language in this letter oper.
ated upon the mind OF Dr.. Garrison it
will be for the defense to show that to
be the thing which caused the defend
GBt to make the threats which he did.
If this letter was the basis for these
threats the witness can show that clear.
ly without introducing the letter.
Mr.. Sommerville said the witness says
the defendant WIS talking about his
mistreatment, and hands the witness q
letter, containing not only very scurril.
lous AID abusive language, but contain.
ing threats. No one can say that these
threats and tho abusive language we're
not OF such character as would make
the mind OF the defendant turn with
bitterness to the person he supposed
was the writer OF the letter. The jury
should be allowed to judge whether or
not tho letter and the abuse OF which
DR.. Garrison complained was or was
not the cause OF his threats, which the
witness has detailed here upon the
stand.
Captain Dovener said the letter is no
justification for threat nor abuse. Nc
man can make any epithet the ground
for threat or the justification for any
such threat, Epithets are not the ex
Cuse for a threat and admitting the let
ter to the jury may mislead them aud il
could not, unless misunderstood, have
any effect nor could it give any iniorma
ton. Everything in conversation does
not have to be admitted to the Jury
Idle end impertineut remarks that have
30 bearing upon the cause do not hayI
to be admitted. Mr.. BenDs's evidence
was that without any further reference
10 the letter. DR.. Garrison spoke Of DR.
Baird and said that he had been making
threats aud using abusive language, RHt
that he could not stand il any longer
He did not say DR.. Baird had been writ
ing him anonymous aud scurrilous let
. tiers, and that he could not stand it. Hal
not made the letter HIS basis for hi
threats but said that tho verbal Rbus
could not be endured any longer. Capt
Doyener Raid II DR.. Garrison wanted +
place the letter in evidence at the prop
er time, and was willing to try the caus
whether or not Dr.. Baird was the autho
, Of the letter, he would not object.
TIE COURTS VIEW.
: The court said his undeTstandinAwa
! that the letter was a part OF a conversi
ton and was a part Of the body Of tn
: subject matter. He looked upon tn
letter as the thing that agitated th