The Lexington dispatch. [volume] (Lexington, South Carolina) 1870-1917, 1899-06-14

tha. Dorm had testified that Craw-
ford had taken two drinks Of liquor
before The tragedy; that Crawford
was evidently ezasperated with the
treatment by Mrs. Stuart; that be
was the aggrassor in the difficulty
with Stuart, being the first 10 use an
epithcs and the first to strike; that
there was but few seconds duration
from the time Crawford slapped
Stuart until the latter regained his
equilibrium and fred. He charged
that Crawford Lad not acted upon
The defensive, but had, to tile con-
trarv, showed malice. He had
slapped Stuart in q way meant to
hurt, not merely to insult him.
Mr. John P. THOMAS, JR.
Mr.. Jno p. Thomas, Jr., On behalf
of the defense, succeeded Mr.. Nc
Master. He conterded that the
search warrant in evidence WAS a
valid instrument. for this class OF
warrant could be issued for tho
seizure of the liquor, though not for
the arrest OF the parties. The neces-
sites of tie case were propcr,ionate
TO the force employed, as was grant
ed by law. Under Sec. 24 Of the
dispensary Law, Crawford did not
need special deputization to execute
the warrant.
Mr.. Thomas referred to the causes
Of the case bang transferred from
the county in which it occurred.
The States presumption is unten-
able; that Crawford had malice
against q man whom be never knew.
He addressed himself to the evidence
for the State, showing that Dorm and
Ed. May field coptradicted each
other: that Stuart and Dorm and
Coleman differed as to the firing of
tie first shot.
He dwelt on the fact that the
negro driver said, There is going
to be hell raised here now; that
Mrs Stuart told the children to run
into the house for ''their papa would
be mad; that Stuart carried pistol
anl asserted that his house should
not be searched.
Mr.. Thomas then discussed his
theory that Crawford's bullet did
not kill Mrs. Stuart. The fatal bull
let was not produced in court. MIR.
S.uart's pistol was not produced.
How did the jury know but that
Mr.. Stuart's pistol was a 44-callbre,
the same as Crawford's)? He spoke
of the futility of Efforts Ct Chief OF
Police Halle to set fire to cloth at a
distance over four inches. Stuart
was nearer to her than Crawford.
The little girl said that when Stuart
fred her mother was facing him.
Was it rot possible that unfortunate
" Stuart's own bullet killed his wife?
The range Of the bullet was upward,
as testified by DR.. OWNS. This
was an argument in favor OF the
theory that the bullet came from
Stuart, falling.
Ccawford's coat showed the marks
Of a A calibre bullet. Where did
it come from? That smart negro,
MayG.ld, who on the stand calls
cons.ables "spies,'' might have
thought it smart to have fired in de-
fense of his employer"
Crawford was not drunk, as
shown by number Of witnesses
He had a warrant to execute, or, fail
ipr. he was to corcede that the law
On the statute books was in error.
lie r,et with resistance, and meas
u1ed force with force.
AIr. Thomas said he would not as
sert that Stuart fired tie fatal shot
but there was a reasonable doub'
that Crawford did. He advanced
his argument as theory. MIR
Thomas q number OF times IN ri;
speech referred to the feeling agalnS
the dlspenSary Ia" anu It's cllieiai''
uR. 3. B. CLARKE SPEAKS.
! Mr.. B. 3. Clarke took up the argu
n,ent for the defense. The begin
ming OF tie trouble was the 'iIlcl
sellcg of whiskey. "Crawford is {
brave nan, and brave man
always polite TO a lady. Crawsor(
would nct force tie execution ct tn
warrant Until NJ. Stewart came. l
be had left without making tn
search, he wonld have been dis
charged. He charged that rtladlc
against the dispensary law was a
the lotion Of the whole affair. In
sacred threshold Of home become
a nuisance when it harbors a "blr
tiger Stuart came up IL rude