The age-herald., 1898-01-06

iHucn EesponSlDle TOT the kllilu6 dS u lhoA- oughly sober man.
 There Was Plenty of Spice.
 There were tilts between attorneys, dis- agreement between the defending counsel and enough sensation yesterday to make the trial a lively one.
 The particularly warm period came when disagreement arose between the attorneys for Collins, and made itself manifest in open court. The trial yesterday is memora- ble for it's different hues and aspects. Once during the afternoon it appeared as though the principal rebuttal witnesses of the state were going to be excluded the ground that they had not been put under rule and had heard the previous testimony. It was during an argument on this point that the episode came.ss.Mr. Little, states witness, had been excluded by the justice. Another witness, Mir. Lopoz, was on the stand when Attorney Lowe (defense) objected on the same grounds. The justice ruled that MT. Lopoz could testify.
 Attorney Lowe then said that the two cases were identical, and if Mir Lopoz tes- tified he was perfectly willing for MT. Lit tie to be put on the stand.
 "We'll accept your proposition" said Att torney Allen (prosecution), quickly taking advantage of the opening.
 'No, no, we haven't had conference" declared Attorney Trotter (defense), jump ing to his feet and extending his arms over the table used by his colleagues.
 "We will accept the gentleman's proposi- ton. We suppose he represents the de- fense," persisted Attorney Allen.
 Attorney Vaughan (defense) said that no proposition had been made; a conference must be held
 Attorney Lowe was still standing, and his face reddened perceptibly. As he sat down would be notified if there was a change from that proposition.
 Allen persisted that he would accept the proposition there and then.
 ''Go and examine the witness; don't play to the grand stand" concluded Lowe.
 When a conference was held between the defending attorneys over the table it was anonunced that there would be no objection to Mr. Little testifying.
 The Trial Began.
 Solicitor Ferguson was not present when court was called to order at 10:3O o'clock, he having some cases to attend in the cir cult court. There were many spectators and the crowd kept growing.
 N. II. Woods was the first witness for the defense.
 Direct-Saw MT. Collins on the 27th of December. It was just few minutes be- fore o'clock. He was drunk. He was talking about good many things I did not think necessary. Have been intimately acquainted with him. Have seen him drunk before. Had seen him four or five times during the holidays. Was drunk each time.
 Cross-Saw Collins in saloon. Was not doing anything. Sometimes took a glass of beer. Did not drink whisky. He talked with me and he knew me. I know he was drunk because he staggered and talked out of his head.
 'When he talks intelligently he is sober, isn't he?"
 Yes"
 Suppose he was able to make trade. sell out his business, or lease it, and con- suit with his counsel intelligently, would you think him drunk or sober?'
 The witness was interrupted by an objec tion from Attorney Lipscomb for the de- fense. The objection was overruled, but the attorneys for the defense continued to argue.
 Attorney Vaughan (defense) said the state had no right to put hypothetical question asking for an opinion unless it was based upon something which had been proven. There had been no evidence that defendant had consulted with his counsel, or made trade.
 Attorney Allen (presocution) said all the evidence was not in. He argued that an attorney frequently put hypothetical ques- tions based on imaginary facts for the pur- pose of testing the witness knowledge. eve have the right to ask hypothetical questions" said he, land then if 1t is not borne out by the facts, it can be excluded"
 Attorney Lipscomb (defense) contended that the hypothetical questions had to be based on the facts already in. He said that a question which was not competent now should be thrown out.
 The judge held to his ruling.
 The question was repeated and the wit ness said he would pronounce him sober.
 Suppose man was sober enough to pay a bill, count checks, pay out the right amount of money, stay around his bar all day, tell the bartender good night and to attend to things, walked down town went to the jail acted perfectly cool, wanted to see a man to see if he was his friene or customer, if he was he wanted to stop that fooishness, would you say that man was drunk or sober?''
 q would say he acted sober"
 Monday evening he was in Collins bar. Collins invited him out to have a seat on a beer keg. Did not talk like man who knew what he was talking about. That was the reason I left him. I took glass of beer and Anderson waited on me. don't recolect whether anybody was in there or not.
 Re-direct-In Collins sober moments he would keep his promise. From what I know of Collins think that if he had been sober he would not have made such promise to the jailer and broken 1t.
 Big Kick Registered.
 DO you think MT. Collins actions indi- cate more the cunning of an insane man than otherwise?"
 Attorney Allen (prosecution) objected on. the ground that the witness was not an expert on insanity. He said the defense did xot caon, to he ahle to distinguish between