The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-11-19

~ o"iu lour persons ming said SUP
porting affidavit, as well as the means
of knowledge of said Burt, is not suff,
clent to support and justify the state
ment contained in their said affdayits.
fltth-The State would show unto the
court that there are approximately 5000
quallhed jurors in Travis county, and
that, IN truth and in fact, there is no
such prejudice existing in said county
against said defendant, Burt, as will pre-
vent him from obtaining a fair and i'm
partial trial.
Inc state asks for hearing upon the
issues Joined and that the application for
Ghangee of venue filed by said defendant,
Burt, be overruled.
A. S. BURLESON, 4
,,, District Attorney.
Inc State of Texas, County of Travis.
Before me, the undersigned authority.
on this day personally appeared r. 4.
White, the sheriff of Travis county,
credible person, who, after being by me
duly sworn, upon his oath states that
the averments contained in the fore
going replication of the district attorney
to the application for change of venue
IN cause No. 11014, State vs. Eugene
Burt, as true in every particular.
II. Il. WHITE.
Sheriff Travis County.
this. the 10th day of November, A. ID.
1896.
O.. S. JAS. p HART
Clerk District Court, Travis County,
Texas.
With the reading of these applications
and replicatiOns, the case was open for
| consideration and the various witnesses
were summoned, one after another, and
testified as to their knowledge and belief
IN the matter as to whether Burt could
have a fair and impartial trial in this
county.
This was the only point of issue for the
present and every witness placed on the
stand was Intercepted and cross-ques-
toned along this line solely, any refer
ence to the deed being for the present
withheld.
With the calling of the witnesses, Mr..
w. u. Eyres, one of the signers of Burt's
application for change of venue, was
the first witness placed on the stand.
Pending an examination, the defense
asked as to whether or not a stenogra-
pher could be had. The court replied
that there was no money to en-
ply one. and thus the matter
was dropped. Before any evidence
was Forthcoming in the cross
questioning at the request of the states
attorney the special venire was excused
from attendance upon the court until 2
o'clock. and withdrew to remain away
until the venue proceedings were over
with.
Mr.. Eyres was then examined and
crOss-examined at length, the trend of his
testimony being that he believed preju-
dice existed in this county to such an
extent that Burt could not have fair
trial here. Mr.. Eyres on cross eXamina-
ton, admitted that he did not have a
very extensive acquaintanceship in the
county and failed to name any one whom
he had heard talking about or express
ing an opinion on the case as to the
names of those in Austin who had al
ready passed a prejudice sentence on
Burt. Mr.. Eyres failed to name any,
and after some further examination as
to the excitement the crime had created
he was dismissed.
VIM. II. Stacy, another signer of the
petition for change of venue, was next
called for, but not being present, James
M. Hall. the third signer on Burt's pc
tition, was called.
On examination and cross-eXaminatiOn
he testified that he was carpenter by
trade and had lived in this county eight
cen years. He admitted to having spent
very little of his time in the county, but
Ip lluu HttIu IL SItut utdl VI tdlh III Tic
city and he believed that it was the gem
eral opinion that Burt was guilty. As
in the other cases, he was asked to give
names of parties that had expressed
themselves as prejudiced against Burt,
but he did not feel justified in doing so.
w. b. Corwin, the fourth petition sign
er, was not present when called for, and
r. Il. Lee was placed on the stand. He
testified that he lived in Carl and had
been a resident there for thirteen years;
that he had heard very little of the Burt
case, and that, as far as he knew, there
was no prejudice there against Burt.
w. b. Walker was next placed on the
stand and testified that he had lived in
this city twenty-fOur years; that he had
heard the case discussed, and that he
thought there was great deal of preju-
dice in the city against Burt, and that
the people generally think him guilty.
On cross-eXamination, he stated that it
was the opinion of those who lived near
Burt that he was guilty of the crime. He
also expressed it as an impossibility to
get a jury for the trial in this city.
w. Il. Carpenter, a resident of Travis
county, had heard the murder discussed
by Austinites, but he did not know as to
whether there was any prejudice in the
country. He thought that most people
believed Burt guilty.
Ed Taylor, also resident of this coun-
ty, had heard the case discussed, but did
not think there was any prejudice
against Burt in the country.
J. II. Bevill of Merrilltown had heard
the case discussed, but didHnot know
there was any prejudice exist
ing in the county against Burt or not.
Mr.. Banks of Webberville when placed
on the witness stand said that he did not
know whether there was any prejudice
against Burt or not. That it was sup
posed that he killed his family, but he
knew no reason why he should not have
a fair trial in this county.
Mr.. Bowes of Pflueggervile said that
while there was very little discussion of
the matter he saw no reason why Burt
should not have fair trial, as he had not
found any one prejudiced against him.
Mr.. Henry Bowles of Pfueggerville
stated that while there had been a great
deal of opinion expressed in the matter he |
could not say that any one was preju- |
diced against Burt, and he saw no rea-
son why he should not have a fair and |
impartial trial. .r
j. II. Bardsley, living near Oatmanville,
lidn't remember to have ever heard OF |
the case being discussed, but personally
he knew of no reason why Burt should
not have a fair and impartial trial.
VIM. Bell of Manor stated that while
40 had heard the case discussed he was
not prepared to say positively but there
night be some prejudice, though in hear
ng Of the case he had concluded that 1t
was possible for Burt to have fair and