The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-01-10

| the past history OF our town, the behavior
Of her people render her secure from the
4 assaults Of any single handed assailant.
4 That Judge Hoke was never in any dan
4 ger OF violence is attested by the high es-
TEEN in which he is held--our people gen
orally believe that there was never n bet
ter Judge there is no one who would meet
a more hearty welcome should he return
| to our district than himself-and il
| Judge Timberlake is concerned, we will
| leave TO him the simple problem Of solv-
| ing the reason why. And it can be said
| with certainty that whenever Judge Hoke
holds our court again he will find lawyers
and suitors ready to try their cases, and
| in not a single county will n docket be
continued by consent.
| So far as the question of courtesy in
| the Governors action is concerned, we
/ need only say those most vigilant in at
tempting to discover sights are usually
| those who feel they most deserve them.
| His Honor ventures to assert" that
| never before when defendants are out on
| bail pending appeal, has a pardon been
| granted. II the judge will take the trou.
| hl to examine the 10th n. G. Rep, pages
| Isl, 239, 240 and 241, he will find four
| cases in which Governor Brogden par
| doned defendants pending appeal, and in
/ two of the cases Judge Russell, the pres
| ent GOvernor-elect, was Of counsel who
pleaded the pardon when the cases were
called for argument in Supreme Court
While the facts do not appear either way
as to whether the prisoners were out on
bail,it seems reasonable to presume that
convicted defendant with able counsel
and with grounds on which he success
| fully asks pardon, would scarcely have
| been lodged in Jail through inability to
bond, which presumptiOn,if correct, places
| those cases squarely as presidents for
| this, leaving in the whole case the only
action standing absolutely without prece-
dent to be the newspaper assault by a
| Judge upon the Governor, so far as this
| writer is informed
1t not being my purpose, however, to
provoke n legal discussion with the judge
| shall briefly give a history Of the un-
| happy episode. | shall not give all the
evidence, but enough of it to fairly show
the legal positions of the two sides as
against each other
Neil Skinner colored. was arrested
about midnight, February %, 1896, by
G. ]. Pratt, known policeman, for rob-
bing Mr.. A. G. Mitchells store Skin
ner refused to be arrested resisted and
| fought desperately, and injured Pratt
and defendant Harris, and especially the
| latter, by biting him on the leg A war
| rant was issued against Skinner charging
him with larceny. What became OF it
/ have never known At next term of
our court Skinner was indicted for re
sisting officers. He was tried before judge
Undertake. After hearing the evidence
the jury returned verdict Of guilty
The next day Mr. Sawyer, of Elizabeth
City, an able andaccomplished lawyer,
arose iii court representing Skinner, and
ased the court to be lenienr. This was
all he asked When he finished, the
| judge OF his own volition, Ordred the YER
| diet set aside and the prisoner discharged.
and also instructed the Solicitor to mol
pros. the Indictment, all Of which was
done.
Pratt's case was called for trial Skin
ner was put on the stand He gave
| lengthy description of the occurrences at
| tending his arrest. According to his
version Of the affair there was uuneces-
sary force used, he was badly injured,
and, if believed by the jury, all the de-
PENDANTS were guilty. Not a witness
| corroborated SINNERS account of the ar
rest. Drs. Mcmillan and Hoskins, ply
sicians Of high standing, testified, giving
description Of SINNERS condition when
| they examined him soon after his arrest
| Thy both stated that there were no ex-
| ternal bruises Of any consequence upon
| Skinner, and that in their opinion, his
condition was due TO his own violent
| exertion. While it may seem to the
mind OF the judge that this contention
| was ''too absurd to mention" the defend
ants thought the jury were the men to
| pass upon it's absurdity, especially as
these two gentlemen had so sworn, and
nobody had contradictsi their state
| ment.
Pratt swore that he gave his reasons to
and arrested Skinner at night because he
feared he would esape before next day
that he carried him to jail because it was
after midnight and people and officers
had retired. That Skinner had long
/ known him as policeman Of Edenton;
| that he made the arrest because he was
Uniformed by Mr.. Harris, whom he be-
|lieyed, that Mr.. Mitchells store had been
broken into and robbed by Skinner
Pratt, Harris, Leggett and Mr. Has
kett Ia reputable gentleman not connected
with the case) all swore to details con-
corning the arrest. Each swore as to
what force was used and that none was
used except what was necessary to pre-
vent SINNERS escape and to avoid i'm
jnry to themselves; Pratt swore that
Skinner struck him terrific blow in the
| stomach, and also injured his wrist, and
| Harris swore that he did not touch Skin
| ner except to fan over him when Skinner
was running soon after he had struck
Pratt, and that as he fell Skinner caught
him, Harris, and bit his leg severely;
| Pratt, Harris and Leggett also stated
that when arrested, Skinner asked Pratt
| if he would release him provided he would
| tell them who was assisting him in break
| ing into the store and they refused to do
| So:
No witness except Skinner cor1tradicted