Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1898-10-26

tosy IMAM dlreet evidence. hecanso .;,,
se person VINO swears directly NAV he
no,iesus mistaken. or he may falsifv
NOW what occurred in that hedroor, ~,
nat night! 1t Is in evidence tha+ !, th,.
evening pistol shot was fired nv somc-
oous ia .nat room, and certain persons
en.erins II found Rose White there. and
aiso everett White unconscious. sitting
upon the moor, back to the bed. and with
ms mead inclined to a certain exten+ a,
ueaeiioeo, ms right arm thrown back his
'ell arm being, as some saw. at his side
"hether or not he was standing when
,he shot was fired, believe there Is M
evidence. ! think the theory Of the state
10 mat ne was in that sitting position
when the shot was fired. II is also 4,
evidence that the accused was upon the
risht side of Everett White. with ber
arm around his neck. attemnt;ry IN
staunch the blood flowing from his tenn
PIE. sne tells you that when she first
saw the pistol she turned to run. and al
most Immediately she heard the shot and
turned and went back and discovered he
was injured, and then went up to him
Threw MS right arm back SO as To set
nearer to him and put her arm around bic
neck 'N nc
she is competent witness hu+ of
course has very high interest here and
so lar as her interest affects her credi-
plllty or the truthfulness of her story en-
| far you will deduct from it. Records Of
her convection of a violation Of the nrn
| hlbitory law have been introduced. Those
CONVICTIONS have no tendency to prove the
| charge against her and they are not adj
missible for any such purpose They are
! admissible only as tending to affect her
credibility
| so FAR as you may think thew show a
moral turpitude or lack of moral charac-
Ter winch in your judgment would affect
| her truthfulness, so far you will use them
mere to abate from the weight of testi
mony she has given. They are not prose-
cutlons for what is denomnated in the
law crimes wicked in themselves. like
murder, burglary or larceny, but they
are oHences against the prohibitory stat
ute enacted in accordance with our ideas
or social government and wisely enacted
| undoubtedly
so you are to give the testimony iusr
SUCH weight as you think it ought tc
| nave, as you do her interest in the case
and abate from her testimony on account
| OF either of them accordingly
| Now L believe the consensus of state
ment is that Everett was drunk that
| night, and She tells you she had been try
| ing to get him to bed, and at last got him
| INTO the bedroom. What occurred in there
before the other parties entered you have
| only her testimony to support She says
| she was pulling upon his sleeve to get
| MN 10 bed, and he in maudlin condi-
ton was resisting. She says she noticed
| ne had has left hand behind him, and all
at once it was withdrawn and she saw the
| revolver in his hand, and then she ran
and the pistol went off,
The State claims that they were having,
| II not quarrel, an unpleasantness, and
| that she was directing him to go to bed
| with profanity. and as the State claims,
he might have been provoking, and she
| procured the revolver from the drawer
and, according to the theory of the State
while she had there Everett said pull
d-n you, pull and Immediately there
was a report, with the result that fol-
lowed.
| The theory of the State is that those
words We're used by Everett as applicable
| to the pistol then in the hand of the de-
fendant and that it was really a daring
| of her to discharge it. She says she did
hear those words, though they may have
been said but that she was pulling him
by the sleeve to get him to bed, and then
occurred the shooting in the manner in
which she stated.
What was the fact? Those in the other
| room say they heard the language Ever
EFT used in clear voice. But it is ar
| gued that Everett was drunk, and this
combined with impeachment in his
| ~ ,I>aJ~ kI,o&
could have spoken in a clear voice. as
they say, and that this testimony is I'M
reliable. 1t is for you to say what the
fact was in regard to his condition, and
whether the words We're used or not
| Is there any evidence in the case, eX-
cept the mere inference that the pistol
was in the hands of the accused. or that
she had it when the challenge to pull was
made, or is it simply superstition? Or
might the language have been used in
the same way if without having the pis-
| toll or threatening, she was endeavoring
| to get him to bed and pulling upon him.
as she says she was? In other words, IS
the expression as consistent with her in
/ nocence as with the crime? Or does it
leave in your mind state of doubt?
You have the evidence of the physicians
as to the wound, and you will consider
if the deceased was in substantially the
same position when shot as when found,
| whether or not shot fired by a party
| standing three feet or more from him
1 would have entered the skull where this
did and taken the same course: whether
it would have taken a more downward
| course You can judge of that in your
own mind by taking into account the po-
| sition of the deceased and the height at
which the accused stood. This is an I'M
portant matter for you to consider and it
may have a good deal of weight with you
in arriving at a result.
! How could the shot have been fired by
Il everett? 1t is said he was right-handed
| and there is evidence that he could use
Il one hand as well as the other. The bulk
of the testimony is that he was right
handed, perhaps you will be satisfied
s, This was a shot on the left side of the
head. taking an upward course. You will
determine whether it could have been
done by him with either hand, and If the
. shot was fred by him, whether it was in