The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1894-01-18

tkpOiHtluS W TIC u6I6uudulJ 10 Cortdlu-
ly the man that hurt me-"
Walking from the witness stand
close to the defendant, she locked at
him and said, he is the man and 1
now see his whiskefs on the side OF
his face as 1 did then on the day he
hurt me.
James Fowler, constable for precinct
No. l, and also deputy sheriff, testi-
fed as to the arrest of Nichols as fol-
lows:
After hearing of the rape he went to
the Strska house and obtained from
Anna description of the man and
the place where the outrage was COM
mitted; Immediately went to Mr.
Richards house, where defendant was
living, but defendant was not there;
then went to another house in the
neighborhood and finally to the Mich
OILS home, which was reached about 2
q. M; after rapping on the door and
parleying finally got in and called for
the boys; found defendant in and took
him into the east room, where began
to examine his person and clothes
looking for blood; owing to poor light
then took defendant over to Straka's
house to continue the examination;
arresting Charley Cleveland on way
and taking him along; left them there
under guard. and went off to make
another arrest; after daylight went TO
scene Of outrage to look for tracks, but
found none; then looked for water and
found hole south OF road and tracks
in its edge as if man had squatted
over the hole; the tracks leaving
water lead towards defendants home;
sent back for defendants shoes and
they fitted and filled tracks exactly;
returned to Straka house and took de-
fendant out behind il to examine him;
found blood stains on defendants
pants and drawers right at the open
ing in front; examined his shirt in
jail on Saturday following day. on
! which crime was committed and found
it stained in front with blood,
DR.. j. L. Barnwell testified that he
had examined Anna Straka on night
after outrage about, O'Clock; found
her badly hurt and exhausted from
loss of blood, excited and nervously
FRUSTRATED He then went on to describe
technically how her person had been
injured, showing that il had been
done in a most brutal manner.
Sheriff White testified as follows as
to the confession Nichols made him in
jail:
Found defendant in custody of Jim
Fowler; | received him aud brought
him into Austin and put HIM in Jail;
had two conversations with him; first
| time talked with him was In hack
when was bringing him in to jail; |
asked him if he knew he was under
arrest and he said yes; L asked him If
he knew the charge and he said yes; L
warned him that if he made any
statement in reference to the commits
sion of the offense it could not be used
for him, but could be used against
him.
Defendant then accounted for the
blood on his pants by saying he had
killed some rabbits the Thursday
evening before Friday, March 80, and
then brought him on and put him in
Jail. Sometime after this Jailer
Meredith told me Nichols wanted to
make statement to me. l went to
the Jail and said to him: "You have
been lying about this blood on your
clothes; now if you want to tell me
anything tell me the truth" After
duly warning him, and without using
any threats or promises, Mr.. White
then went on to detail the confession
made HIM by the defendant, which is
also unfit for publication,
THE TRIAL.
The defendants attorneys promptly
made motion for a new trial, which
was overruled by the court, where.
upon they took an appeal to the
higher court, the Judgment of the
10 Wer court being affirmed by that
tribunal on Oct 81.
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.
Following is defendants motion for
y new trial which was overruled:
First-That house bill No. 80, as
promulgated by the Twenty-second
legislature of Texas is unconstitution-
al and void in this: The said bill
passed the house of representatives of
said Legislature, and as sa ne passed
said house, the age of consent was
fixed at IA years. When said bill was
presented to the senate of said legis
lature, said senate amended said bill
and fixed the age of consent at IL
years, and said bill as amended was
returned to the house of representa-
tives, but the records of said house do
not show that the said amendment
r. ducing the age of consent from IA to
IL was ever concurred in and adopted
by said house
Second-Because the court erred in
permitting the witness, R. K. White.
to detail the alleged con ession of Ed
Nichols to the jury over the objection
of defendant,
Third-Because the court erred
in allowing the district at.
torney to 70 question the offered
Jurors as to whether or not they had
conscientious scruples, after said
offered jurors had been questioned by
the court and found to be competent,
thus impressing on the jurors already
selected and sworn that the defend
ant should be given the death penalty.
Fourth-Because the witness, Anna
Straka, when being questioned as to
whether or not she understood the
obligation of all oath said she did not
and her testimony should have been
excluded.
The remainder of the reasons set out