The Opelousas courier., 1901-11-23

1OIIoWCu y upOu III SbIcGUs anu OOISA
triling circumstances, all of which, rs we hold, had
no better foundation to rest upon than her distorted
imagination. AS against this proof going to show
that the intruder was the plaintiff, defendant admits
in his testimony at page SO, that he knew of the evil
dence upon which plaintiff relied to establish his
atsbS before he made the affidavit; that the district
attorney had told him about it, saying that he learn
q ed that his brother, Allen, claimed to have slept with
him that night; he also admits that Sheriff Brous-
sard told him about his interviews with Drene
Martel, the old nurse who was staying at plaintiffs
house, who declared to him that plaintiff arrived
early cat evening and never went out again that
night; that plaintiff brother also came in about
that time and never went out again, having slept
with his brother; that the colorSl woman living on
the opposite corner from the plaintiff had told him
that plaintiff had arrived at his housA about oo,clock
that evening; and he also knew befbre he made the
affidavit that as, soen as plaintiff he}rd of the rune
connecting~him with the affair thai he was taxing
steps to locate the or1ginators. ltgis shown that
plaintiffs letter to him denouncing e4he Rhmor as
false was delivered to him several days before ne
made the affidavit; and, finally, he admits that he
was present when the girls had the conversation
with the Chacheres after the arrival of himself and
wife (see his testimony at middle of p. 22), and it is
undisputed that he was present when he and the
negro boys entered the room of the young women
and in answer to his question that these declared
that they did not know who had entered their room.
Thus it is seen that he did know that the young
women at first declared that they did not knoaO who
had entered their room; his denial of this import
ant matter is absolutely essential to his hope of
SuCCGSSe u U Ciu uG cSCdpC Ii lCluoi Iudt
they made frequent contradictory statements, except
by swearing that he only heard those that were in
line and consistent ? .
We have shown in our main brief (p. 46 ct seq.),
by liberal excerpts from the transcript how these
two young women contradict themselves IN I'M
portant and vital particulars, and how they contra
dict other witnesses of undisputed veracity; and
we invite and request the Court to refer to same.
We there call attention to the fact that while both
declared upon the trial of the criminal and civil
cases that they positively recognized the plalnt1ff
as the man who entered their room, they stated to
the defendant upon his entering the room that
night that they ''did not know who it was; he was
a tall slim man dressed in black, and had a red
handkerchief tied over his nose" See Tr. p. 1868,
also p. 37l. Pretermitting the testimony of the
Chacheres prior to the arrival of defendant and his
wife (they having declared that the soung women
had repeatedly declared that they did not know who
had entered their rooml, we call attention to the
fact that defendant admits in his testimony, ~
and 40, that he was present when his wife and the
Chacheres were speaking to them, showing that this
Court is in error wherein it is stated that nothing IN
the evidence shows that defendant was present when
the young women made the statements to the Cha
eheres as quoted below. It is utterly incredible and
impossible of belief that he did not hear what then
took place, or that he did not know that they had
made such statements. 1t is also shown by his own
testimony that the Chacheres were there before he
left for his wife, whom he met before he had gone
a block. (See TT. D.. 143.). Therefore, he must
have heard them say then and there that ''the man
was tall and slim, that he was disguised" and that
14uuy NOuAiO OOtdu II uOeACA eihV ~ Noo OuO oho
who had a grudge against her." We here desire to
state that the person whom Ludy Veazie alluded
to in the statement quoted could not possibly have
referred to the plaintiff. She said it was a. stall
slim man.; the evidence shows that plaintiff is a
man of medium height, weighing 200 pounds, and
measuring AZ inches around the waist. he was
present at the argument OF this case III this Court,
and your Honors can judge of this for yourselves.
She told her mother that it was "the one who had
a grudge against her. how could she have referred
to the plaintiff, whom she tries to make it appear
was frequently passing her house to get q view OF
her or to engage her in conversation ? Is this the
conduct of a man who had ga grndge against her,
or who 6 hated her.?
Passing next to the testimony of Sheriff Frazee,
we find that he says, Tr. p. Il, .Neither of them
identified the party at the time in question. des-
cribing him as 80 tall man, wearing a dark felt hat
and dark coat, with handkerchief over the top part
of his face Observe here that it is not pretended
that defendant or his wife charged the young
women to withhold anything from the Sheriff.
That official had been sent for by defendant him.
self to investigate the matter, and it is INCREDIBLE
that any member Of that household would on that
occasion have designedly soshheld from ham any
information bearing upon the occurrence. He
goes on to say. Tr. p. 20, 30 that night / asked
Miss Dejean about the affair, as she seemed to be
fairly quiet. She said she had no idea who it was;
that she had covered up her face when she saw
the man." The Sheriff does say, however, that the
next morning Ludy Veazie told him in answer to d
question as to whether she did not have some sus-
picions as to who the person might be, remarked,
"A person may suspect, but-'; and later tells
the Court that Celie Dejean several days after the
occurrence at her home in the country told him and
Mr.. Broussard that she had recognized the plaintiff
as the man who had entered. Ex-Sherltf sDuson,4
who until a few years ago lived in this est. Landry
parish, and who was sent for by the defendant to
investigate the case, testifes, TT. p. 1872: The two
girls told me they coud not saOeGr 1T was Hart
Sandoz. but they knew it was him from surround
ing circumstances. When pressed they said they
could not sspear it was him, but they thought So
It is INCREDIBLE that defendant did not know of
+hasa CONGRATULATIONS in the testimony of his nrinci-5