Marshall County independent. (Plymouth, Marshall County, Ind.) 1897-1902, 1898-01-28


The saloon keeper and his bar tender
had their say and told all they knew
about Sutherlin and Fetters during
their short visit TO their saloon in Knox
on Nov. Ii. 1896. Both were positive
that Fetters had a roll of money and
paid for the drinks.
Mr.. Borden, the proprietor is man
past the meridian OF life and 10 all ap-
pearances endeavored to be fair wit
ness. BY these two witnesses the
state expects TO prove beyond a reason
able doubt that he displayed this money
III the presence OF SutherlIn. That all
oils were paid by Fetters. Reynolds,
tho bar tender Gid not see Sutherlln
spend any money, and III ii Sutherin and
fetterS left the saloon together. and
SutherliD SAID they were going To Ply
mouth
Mr. Woodwork is the Intelligent farm
q, end the "king Zee" Of the nelghbor-
hood where the alleged murder was
said 10 have taken place He toiG lis
story IN plain forward manner. When
the names of Grace Primley and TaZ
Mitchell were mentioned the audience
leaned forward expecting to hear some
thing on the sensational order, but in
this they were disappointed, and Taz
and Grace Will be heard from later or.
The lawyers for the defense, Messers
MartiuGale X Stevens are on the alert,
and the skillfull manner in which they
are conducting the defense is being free
~ commented on.
John Borden testified. Saw no money
in purse, but saw roll of bills. saw
Fetters take roll of money from his
pocket. Don't know the denomination
OF the bills. Fetters bought two drinks
of whiskey. Fetters drank one and
Sutherln the other, changed - bill
Tor fetfers giving back $3.50 in change
which FetterS placed in his right hand
pocket. did not testify at the pre-
liminary trial in Knox. Didn't know
tetters we'll enough to cal. him by
name, | am acquainted with Enoch
Now. saw Fetters at livery barn, also
saw him at the tuck leberry marsh
could not describe the clothing worn bv
Fetters.
Reynolds, bar tender for Borden tes-
titled that he knew Sutherln and Iet-
ters. Saw both of them In KnoA. Nov.
18th, 1896. They came into saloon and
Sutherlin asked Fetters TO take drink,
FetterS refused, said he didn't want to
drink, noticed peculiar mark on over
coat of Fetters, would recognize coat
Il shown 20 ME. Goat was produced and
identified by witness.) Cross examin-
ed: Sutherlin ana Fetters came INTO sa-
loon between and s O'clock, bot b took
q drink and Sutherln paiel ihe bill,
Sutherlin was in the saloon next day,
Sutherlin didn't Introduce me to Fet-
tiers. didn't see him again. They drove
small sorrel pony, and brown horse.
The pony was on the "off slde,' pony
was blemished on iett side and | refus-
ed o buy him for that reason.
+. Woodwork testified. Live in Starke
county, live east of election school house
about Il rods, | was at home on the night
of Nov. 10th. Heard loud noise and
quarreling in the direction of school
house, heard four shots fired and loud
talk, was standing in front of my
house, 1t was between and 9 O'Clock
did not Investigate the cause of the
shooting, remember when the grave
was opened. l heard there was a pool
of blood in the road but did not see it
Cross-eXamined by Mr. Stevens. The
witness stated tha Grace lrimley was
MS adopted daughter and lived with
him Nov. 10th 1896. She was at home
on that night, but had left the house
with her two children shortly before
the shooting. She returned in one hour
bringing with her a pair of rubber boots.
TaZ Mitchell was not at my house that
night. The noise at the school house
continued six or seven minutes, heard
several voices, thought it was drunk
ell row.
DIR. Glazebrook Knox physician,
testified that he examined the body at
the undertakers. Thought 1t about )
feet 8 inches high, medium size His
description as TO the condition of the
corpse was practically the same as that
of former witness. Flesh slipped from
the bones very readily. Thought the
wound had been inflicted by blunt
instrument. His evidence went to
show that he had been shot in the head
the bullet starting in at eide of face
and coursing upwards through the
skull. He thought the wounds were in
hicted before death, and that they
would cause death. The defense in
cross examination sought to prove by
the witness in the light of his knowl-
edge from the text books that no ply
sician can tell whether or not a wound
10 nrodurad hpforp Or after death At