The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-08-16
LIQUIDS CASE NOT TRIED.
THE STATE ASKS TINE TO SECURE
ABSENT WITNESSES.

Spicy Talk In the superior COure
over the Motion of the Solicitor
General for a POstpOnement 80
That somers and other Absent
witnesses Can he Brought Here.
The Defense object. Rs IL Claim
That u Has Been Waiting for .,
Trial Ever since Loud Was In
dfeted.
The case of Charles D. Loud. charged
with the murder Of Phil H. Fitzpatrick,
at Thunderbolt. was postponed in the su-
perIor court yesterday morning. Judge
FaIligant assigning the case for Friday
morning. Aug. %.
The matter was brought up by motion
by the solicitor general for postpone
ment, on account Of the absence of a ma
teriaI witnesses, John J. SOmers, Mrs.
Somers and Harry Kennedy.
The attorneys for Loud objected vigor-
ousIy and urged a speedy trial At the
request OF the prisoner and the judge. the
state stated what he expected to prove
by its witnesses The defense could not
agree to admit all that the solicitor gem
eral said would be proved, and the matter
was argued. Maj. Meldrim, Judge Twiggs
and T. 5. Morgan, Jr., Esq, for the de-
tense and the solicitor general on the
part of the state. Finally the judge asked
II week would do, and he set the trial
for Friday next.
The solicitor general desired two weeks
postponement, but as Mai. Meldrim stated
that he was going away on the evening
OF Aug. q, the court took that into con-
sideration, and allowed one week for the
state to get the recalcitrant witnesses.
When the court convened the room
was packed with spectators, even the
galleries holding their own quota OF
colored sight-seers. The defendant, Col.
Loud. sat in the body of the room, sur
rounded by his counsel and friends. His
counsel consisted Of Garrard. Meldrim
& Newman, Judge D. d. Twiggs of
Waynesboro, and T. S. Morgan, Jr., and
II. w. johnson OF this city. Among
others present were Col. LIQUIDS brother,
p H Loud, Jr., his law partner, Mr..
Clark; Mr.. William PTitchett who was
with the prisoner that night Of the kill
ing at Thunderbolt. and others.
After the judge had called the case,
Solicitor General Fraser announced that
the state was not ready. Three impor-
tant witnesses were absent, he said, and
he could not go on without them. They
were John j. Somers. who saw the trag-
edy and knew of it fully, his wife and
Harry Kennedy. The two former had
been duly subpoenaed, but the latter had
not and he had gone to Augusta. The
1891 al
before the grand jury. and principally
upon his testimony the indictment was
found. He had left for the north
after the indictment had been found
and only last Saturday had the state
discovered his whereabouts.
The solicitor general urged further
that he had arranged TO pay the wit
ness expenses to and from, and also
10 protect him here in a petty INSIDE
meanor case in the city court. Somers
accepted this proposition, but had after
wards wired that his children were Ill
and that he could not come. Mr.. Fraser
was sure that the witness would come,
but that il would take some little time
10 make all the arrangements, and hence
he asked for a postponement.
The Indictment was secured at the June
term and the state under such circum-
stances had an arbitrary right, argued the
solicitor for a postponement under the
circumstances. The authorities were
quoted at length and the argument was
extended.
AS to the time required. in response tc
a question by the court. Mr.. Fraser said
il was difficult to say. II might be shorter
or longer as he had trouble in commune
eating with his witnesses. A letter would
take. say thirty-six hours, and then 1t
would require some time to fully arrange
other matters. The testimony was valua-
BILE as Somers was before the grand jury
and his statements were very important.
Major Meldrim Of the defense replied
that the proposition of the state was two
ii were, and postponement to some other
date
Judge Falligant-"You can leave out the
former"
Maj AGeldrim-''It might strike your hon
ors mind, as ii has ours, that the plea
of the state is very weak-it does not give
any date as TO when the witnesses will he
here and is vague in the extreme. The
question is, is the showing made by the
state sufficient for the purpose 1t strikes
me that it Is not. The prisoner does not
wish 10 take any advantage. l wish that
10 be distinctly understood We want TO
aid II If anything. But your honor knows.
and my learned friend knows, that from
the moment of this unfortunate homicide
Loud IS from another part of the state and
is under considerable expense here
Mai. Meldrim continued on the legal as
poets of the case and argued that the dis
erection of the court must be based upon
a legal reasoning and that the state, as
wen as the defendant, in such a case,
must make a good showing before being
entitled to a postponement. Material
facts must be shown. 1t had not been
proven, he said, that the witnesses had
been duly subpoenaed even.
Mr.. Fraser answered that they had been
as to Somers and his wife; but that Ken
nedy got away before any summons could
be served.
Mr. Meldrim instanced the case of Abe
Small. A witness had been duly sub
poenaed, but another person had an
ewered. Upon investigation the person
was found not to have been the party
wanted and as the witness was a material
one. why then the postponement had
been granted. This case was entirely diff
ferent
The counsel then alluded to the bar
gain" as he called it, made by the state
in promising Somers his expenses and i'm
munity from charges in another court
and wanted to know if the bargain coult
be kept