The Opelousas courier., 1901-11-23

Wu@ Will uOuUU Glldb AC VAOh
PENDANT this important statement of these two
witnesses.
But not only are these young women contradicted
by several disinterested witnesses IN these respects'
but we request the Court to bear in mind that an
Identification of the man in that roomtha night was
impossible under the circumstances. 1t is admltted
that there was no light in the room, except the am
reflection of the*street lamp at least LOO feet away
the rays of which partially entered the dormer WIN
dow o6Iiquely; and no one could have known that
fact better than the defendant himself. Ihe young
women never varied from their first statements as TO
the man having q handkerchief tied across his race
and a hat upon his head; so, that can be taken TOT
admitted. The evidence is overwhelming thaC IT.
was impossible to recognize any person in that room
under like circumstances; and We refer to the testl-
mony of Alex. and Albert Burlelgh, two brotners,
who testify at Tr. PIP. 81 and IS, that they could not
recognize each other, or indeed any other person IN
that room on the occasion when they VISITED IL WIN
the jury that tried the criminal case. Gan the ae-
PENDANT be heard to say that he did not know Wheth-
err It was possible to recognize anyone IN that room
on the night of the occurrence, when he states as per
page 6 of the decree, that when the door opened ne
said to Miss Dejean, who was lmmedlateIy oeloie
him, ''where is Ludie?" Bear in mind that at that
time there was no other person in the ROOM yet ne
had to ask where his daughter was before he could
locate herl That Chester Beauchamp recognized
Miss Dejean at that time is easily accounted Tor by
the fact that she was standing near the door, began
to talk as soon as the door was opened, and he knew
she was one of those in the room.
The Court in its decree attaches some Importance
to the fact that plaintiff was seen passing the de-
PENDANT premises frequently, to his stopping at the
livery stable and the Garland office, etc, and says
that this conduct on the part OF plalntlft, being tneh
unexplained, was sufficient to cast suspicion upon
him. In reply to this we desire to urge upon the
Courts attention that defendant says he considered
these acts of no Importance, as does the district at
torney, who says that Mrs. Veazie had spoken to him
on the subject; and while it is pretended that it was
a subject of comment and complaint IN the family,
yet no male member of the household ever accosted
the plaintiff in relation to it. Defendant knew that
plaintiff was in the habit of passing that way to and
from his 6ome; that the stable belonged to his faith
er-in-law; that he was a man OF good character,
married and had several small children. Since he
took no netice of these facts himself, being fully
acquainted with the reasons of the frequent pres
ence of plaintiff upon that street, even after he says
his attention was directed to the matter, can he
now be given the benefit of these circumstances to
justify the doing of an act so prejudicial to
plaintiff :? If these circumstances were deemed by
him of no Importance, can they now be considered
as the basis of probable cause
The Court adverts to several of these clrcum-
stances as though they were entitled to credence
and consideration. For instance, mention is made
of the fact that on the evening of the alleged
burglary the plaintiff was seen by the young women
standing on the bridge in front of the livery stable,
looking towards their windows. On p. 376 of the.
Transcript it will be seen that this statement is not
only totally denied in so far as plaintiff being there
for the purpose stated, but it is a matter of impos-
sibility for any one standing on that bridge to get a
vieuo of those windows. This testimony was not
rebutted or contradicted, and the jury that tried
this case visited the premises and made their own
observations from that point. How can defendant
allege this circumstance as a ground or basis for
believing plaintiff the person who would commit
such a crime as he charged against him ! That
bridge is in the middle of the block on which his
residence stands; could he not with reasonable
diligence have discovered that plaintiff could not
possibly see the windows of his daughters room
from that point of view? AS to the statement
made by Ludie Veazie that plaintiff tried to entice
her into the Garland Office ON the pretense that
someone wanted to speak to her through the tee-
phone, can this be considered as deserving of a
feathers weight when il is pointed out that though
plaintiff explained this circumstance fully by
stating it was her own aunt who wanted to speak
to her, the aunt was not produced to disprove his
statement, nor did Lude Veazie herself contradict
his explanation. While considering these trlflng
surrounding circumstances we may be permitted
to say, that if defendant was, as he claims, a
"friend' - of plaintiff, that he had known him since
childhood, having lived on the adjoining farm, etc.,
what basis for belief could he derive from these
incidents as going to show that plaintiff contem-
plated dong the terrible act which he ascribes to
him ? Because his "friend y, whom he had known
since childhood, happened to look towards his
daughter on several occasions IN passing her house,
or because he was accommodating enough to tell
her that her aunt wished to speak to her through
the telephone in the Garland Office, he is to be
considered as having been guilty of the conduct of
a fend Can this be Justification for such a
charge No reasonable man would believe it.
Aside from the contradictions of these two
principal witnesses, the defendant himself is
proven to have made contradictory statements. 1t
is proved beyond doubt by the testimony of G. j.
Thompson, ex-mayor, Arthur Simon, Justice of the
Peace, DR.. w. NJ. Thompson, and others, that
during the first two or three days subsequent to the
occurrence he stated to these gentlemen several
times, that the young wssnen had not identified the
intruder. True, he endeavors to escape the con-
sequences Of his admission, by attempting to have
us believe that this was one of his deep-hld plans
to catch on to more evidence but we ask, in all
earnestness, how could he place himself in a
nos;tion uhnrn he would he less likely 70 accnn--