The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-26

Glass as prosecutor was offered in evi- | dence.
 Then court took a recess until 3:3o | o'clock.
 THE LAWYERS BEGIN
 THEIR ARGUNENT.
 When the court reconvened at 33o o'clock Solicitor Iomax opened the argu.. ment for the State. He defined the legal | status of an assault and battery and said l that beyond a few questions the testi- mony, was identical, The fact stands out and w. w. Hill waited for more than two hours for Mir. Glass. For what pur- pose. asked the Solicitor. For no other purpose than what was the actual result | was deduced from the testimony of every single witness, including the testimony Of MT. w. w. Hill himself. The law was so plain that there was no way. to get around it. They were guilty of assault ana battery. If Wiley c. Hill was with | w. W. Hill he. too was guilty of as. in and took the part of their brothers they, too. were guilty of assault and bat | tery.
 The Solicitor then took up the testi- | mony relating to publications by The Ad- vertiser and said that it was not to be considered by the jury except as to whether 1t concerned the credibility or Major Screws or MT. Glass He said the I | tions would not justify an assault. Op- | probious words abusive epithets used | at or about the time of the difficulty, de- clared the Solicitor. is the only just1nca- | tion under the statutes for assault and | battery. Even granting that the law per | mtted the Justification of an assault TOT | opprobious or abusive language com | mitted more than twenty-four hours be- | fore the assault. the Solicitor asked the | jury If 1t were possible to say that the | editorials in The Advertiser were insult ing. l Solicitor Lomax then read the editorials l in The Advertiser and said the jury, if | 1t acted honestly. was bound to say there was nothing in the articles to justify an | assault He said If there was anything l in the purpose of the editorial to warrant l an assault and battery upon the writer | of the article his mind was not capaole | of conceiving an injustice. | He then argued that there was no selr | defense and took up the testimony snow l ing how MT. Glass and Major screws | had started home as usual He had been warned that two Messrs. Hill were wait ing for him and he laughed at it. He ielt the office unarmed. He then showed that | the party of three had been waiting tor were armed with pistols and sticks | There was no controversy about how the | difficulty started. Each witness agreed that MT. Hill began to strike Mr Glass | as soon as he addressed him. MT. LomaX declared that the man who returned a l verdict of not guilty because of self de- fense would deserve the laughter of the community. If not its scprn and contempt. | Coming to the action of Major Screws, the Solicitor said he admitted that every single witness had shown that every act | of Major Screws was to stop difficulty. | While he was engaged in trying to stop 1t he was stricken with an umbrella. "The terrible Crusius was called on, ex- claimed the Solicitor. That awful Cru sius was called to bring his gun. You've seen the mild-mannered Crusius on the stand" He said the learned counsel on the other side had talked about this | peaceable citizen like he was terror that Crusius the invlncible. Crusius, the terrible. Crusius. "the red badge of cour- age of The Advertiser office. had been called to wipe out the assaulters. Concluding MT. Lomax told the jury to | take the case and return an honest yer dict. which must be that W. w. Hill and everybody who intervened In his behalf were guilty as charged in the indictment
 Argument of MT. Macdonald.
 Hon. Gordon Macdonald then spoke briefly to the jury. He said that his as- sociates would make the principal arsu- ment He said that MT. Lomax had un- | dertaken to assume the conscience of the jury. He was not the keeper of the ju-
 Mir Macdonald argued that these cases should not have occupied the dignity or the courts. It was merely matter or a street fight and should have been settled in a police court. He said that the evi- dence had shown that the newspaper edited by Major Screws and MT. Glass had indignantly persecuted the family Of Hills.
 At this point MT Lomax interrupted Mir. Macdonald and asked him if he intended | deliberately to argue to the jury that would warrant an assault and battery.
 Mir. Macdonald said that he did hold that The Advertiser had indignantly per secuted the Hill family.
 Mr II yEytfh that there was any law or evidence to show cause for an assault.
 Mir. Macdonald replied that the jury would be governed by the law and the evidence and not by what Mir. Lomax said.
 MT Macdonald then spoke of the pre- cipitation of the difficulty. He said that Messrs. w. C. Hill and w. w. Hill had waited to see MT. Glass and when Mir Glass was addressed he drew himself up haughtily and MT. w. W. Hill struck him He argued that pr. L. l.. Fll and Dr. R. s. Hill acted as reasonably as brothers could have done under the cir cumstances.
 the jury that it was the sole judge of the case, entirely free from the opinions of MT. Lomax.
 Speech of Colonel Wiley.
 At 4;S5 o'clock Colonel A. A Wiley be- gan his remarks to the jury. He ex- pressed his regret that lamentable diffi-
 
 citizens. the editors of a great and infu- ential newspaper and four reputable eo n. tlemen, standing high in their profession The State. through MT. F. P Glass as public prosecutor, had brought the cases before the jury. One indictment charged Messrs. w. c. Hill. w. w. Hill and R. & Hill with assauling Mir, F P. Glass. The other indictment charged pr. L. L. Hill with assaulting Major W w ScreWH The cases were being tried Jointly.
 Colonel Wiley then dwelt upon the duty of a jury to the defendant as we'll as tC the prosecutor. He wanted to see tho jury stand up and hew to the line in this case. feeling that victory would perct upon the banner of his clientsl
 | Disclaiming any animosity toward Ma | ior Screws and MT. Glass. Colonel Wiley said he was attempting to discharge hls duty as an humble lawyer. He argued that there had been bad feeling beIWeer the editors of The Advertiser and Messrs Hill He showed that The Advertiser hac | not published accounts of successful CD eratfons at the Hill Inhrmary and re ferred to other incidents which. he said was irritating and stinging to the Messrs Hill. They had only asked to oe let alone He dwelt at some length upon this phase of the evidence and deduced the cOnclu sion that The Advertiser was hostile tC the Messrs. Hill.
 Colonel Wiley said he did not contend that the original editorial on the Assist ant Solicitorship was cause for on as , sault but he contended that because o