The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1892-05-02

no walked into Prayers store. The wit.
ness was asked as to what he had testi-
fled to at the %coroner's inquest, and a
long discussion arose between counsel.
as to the correctness OF tho stenographic
notes taken at tho inquest. The state
disputed tho correctness OF the notes,
and the defense said 1t was n copytaken
blythe stenoyrapher andswornt to by him.
The court sustained the objection, which
claimed the stenographic report was in
correct, and Colonel Arnett excepted.
The witness said he saw DR.. Garrison
standing near tho buggy; no remained
there until after no fired the shots, and
then went down Eleventh street 10 Mar
ket. DR.. Baird stood nearer Pagers
than no was to tho buggy. Tho witness
saw DR.. Baird's hands, but did not know
them.
William c. Beans, city editor Of the
Register, was called to tho stand. Asked
II he had ever heard Dr.. Garrison. utter
a%nythingin tho naturco OF threat against
DR.. Baird, he replied that he had q con.
versalion with DR.. Baird in January,
1891. Dr.. Garrison told him he had re.
ccived IN anonymous letter and showed
1t to him. Tho letter was very abusive
and tho doctor was very angry. Ito
said, without mentioning DR.. Bnird's
name-though the witness said that no
and the defendant understood DR.. Baird
to be mcant-llat he had been abusing
him again. and that he would either hx
him, or was fixed for him it might be,
tho witness said, that
lie SAID lie WOULD KILL HIN.
He knew it was Il distinct threat, but
no could not recall'theexact expression.
On cross.examination the witness
SAID that he did not think DR.. Baird's
namo was mentioned in the CONVERSE
ton. He had heard go much OF the
controversy between DR.. Baird and Dr.
Garrison that he did not pay much at
t~cntion to Dr., Garrison ut this times
Lilo considered tho threat OF DR.. Garri-
son Us n threat contingent upon a
continuation Of the abuse by DR.. Baird,
but no did not pay much attention TO
i as 4 threat, because he was always:
hearing 4 great deal about the ,contro-
versy between Drs. Baird and Garrison.
Mr.. Beans identified q letter shown him
as one that DR.. Garrison said he had
received, and which was under discus
sion at tho time the conversation took
place. Tho defense offered tho letter in
evidence, but tho court sustained the
objection made by the state, and the
letter was not admitted, nor was Mr..
Beans allowed TO be questioned. Mr..
Somerville sought TO shake the wit
ness's rccollections as to the threats
made by DR.. Garrison, out tha news
paper man had attended court before,
and held his own with the lawyer.
After Mr.. Beans had given his testi-
mony Capt. Dovener announced hat
the state would close some tine on
Monday, and the court directed tho at.
tornoys for the defense to have their
witnesses promptly oil hand.
The jury was excused until Monday
morning and after it had retired Mr.
Sommervilie argued at length on the
plea filed by the defense at the begin.
ming, claiming that DR.. Garrison could
not be tried q second time for murder
in the first degree. Mr.. Sommerville
presented some good arguments and
quoted several authorities.
Mr.. Sommerville admitted that au-
thorities differed on the question, but
claimed that the cases cited by the
state in favor OF lis side OF the case
mostly turned on i statute or constitu.
tional provision. Taking up tho Vir-
ginia case OF the Commonwealth VS..
Livingstone, II G%rattan, 592, Mr.. Som
merviile said it was true that the
majority Of the court decided against
Judge Daniels, WHO delivered Il very
able, argument in favor OF not permit
ting the state to try the defendant q
second time for murder in the first de-
gree, yet in the Stewart case, in 1877, Il
majority OF the court quoted with ap-
proval Judge Daniels's opinion in the
Livingstone case and adopted his views.
In Virginia the Stewart case was fol-
lowed by the adoption OF a statute Gre
atlng anew rule.
In West Virginia, Nh. Sommeryille
said, the question had not been passed
upon by the supreme court of appeals,
but no had reliable information that
Governor Fleming, when n Judge, and
other judges in this state, had decided
it according to the d~efense's view. Mr..
Sommerviile cited the following author:
tiles in support Of his position: State
vs.. Joseph, 3 Ga. r.. 405; Foster VS..
State. I ID, 713; johnson vs. State, 8
Id, 20S; Robinson VS.. State, II s. W.,
632; State vs.. Severson, As N. w, 305.
u - So