The Opelousas courier., 1901-11-23

To contradict this testimony several
were introduced to show that defendant m.1lesss
statement for the first time on the trial ~ @ ~ this
case. See testimony of W. j. Sandoz. n 'ne civil
trial in shorthand criminal
which you took at the time? A. | have ''stlAong
go. Did +. 2. Veazie on that trisI
witness that soon after the occurrence tbott "e asa
his wife called her daughter into an adio;n;@s night
he following them, and that the daughter Il. ioona,
there said to her mother that the man tbat tnea and
the room was Hart Sandoz =? A. am en.eted
that he made no such statement as HAVING fp pII
his wife and daughter into that room at t6atO 4.:ohed
On this point. see also the testimony of Tha Jug
Lewis, TT. p. 366: 1.-The subject matter 80 y ~; d
these two persons who We're in that roo So @ ll
night Qirst) claimed to have recognized ma 1ls
Sandoz, was considered by the defense q : mart
ton of supreme Importance, and was mad as US
subject of close scrutiny and cross-interroaa we
from the very beginning of the trial. hoconssaaHee
whole theory of the defense was, that tbo we
women at first made one statement of the solag
renee and were afterwards persuaded and ; nS'p,
to make another statement. The statement ~
On the stand by Mr.. V. in this case, that soon m y
that occurrence his wife had called his danabto. a .e
an adjoining room, he following them tHare , ~
that his daughter had then and there disclosa,l aI y
name of Hart Sandoz as the individual that ont, ~
that room, was an entirely new statement 10 s
l watched this case In the trial of the criminal ems
and had the chief control of it, and paid snee;;a ~ y
tention to that particular feature of the case j. 8
heard no such testimony from Mr.. Veazie on ~
trial of the criminal case" See also the tast;mose
of John w. Lewis, Tr. p. SO, which is to tho ~
effect. sMs
Besides these positive statements, though 4 wa
claimed by the defendant in this case. that H.
daughter made the disclosure to him and his WIFI
before he left with Ed. Hudspeth to 90 aftar ~
hounds ha wac cOmnnIInd ia admit uno, ..|S
animation that he did not mention that reyelatss
either to Ed. Hudspeth, or to Mrs. G N
Hudspeth, at whose house he stopped to tell bas
of the occurrence. Nor did he make the statemeal
on that night either to Sheriff Frazee, who arrived
there at half-past one O'Clock that night, 81, Is
w. B. Lewis, q deputy, or to any other persa
there that night, as far as has been disclosed
by the testimony. All this conclusively shows
that the defendants daughter made no such dis
closure to him on that night, and that his test.
mony on that point is entirely unworthy of credit
and ought not to be accepted by this Court.
Recurring to that portion of the opinion Whefe
your honors say, that you have no doubt Luds
Veazie communicated to her parents, on the nigh
of the occurrence, the name of the plaintiff as Tie
person who entered the room. we think the eirenm.
stances mentioned as pointing to such a conclusion
are more reasonably explained upon an entirely DIFF
ferent hypothesis. Your Honors presume chat had
not Ludie Veazie been checked by her mother On
e al Nv ol1l navy NAoStOOSt OlOE lAH N#
the plaintiff as the Individual that entered The
room; and it is also presumed by the, Court that
she, in speaking of the person that had "a grudge
against her" and ''hated her" alluded To- the
plaintiff.
Now, we unhesitatingly affirm that both presuInp.
lions are improbable. The plaintiff had no grudgs
against her; and so far from harboring any hatred
toward her, the whole theory of the prosecution
against the plaintiff was based upon the assuInp-
ton that he was possessed of an uncontrollanle
amatory passion for her. Now, Mrs. Feazle, aes
cording to the testimony of her husband, while on
the way with him to the house, and immediately
upon being Informed Of the occurrences, sad 70 Ra3
that it was Hart Sandoz. She did not ~expressIt 20
him as a belief or opinion-she asserted IT TO hF
husband in a positive way, as a fact. Her Tenare
showed q keen readiness to charge the plaintiff VIII
the ofense; she had neither the motive nor te
wish to shield him in any way, and having az on1s
charged the offense against him to her husDand
there was no reason to conclude that her caution g
her daughter was intended to prevent the mention
of HIS name, and still less reason to conclude tlaA
the daughter would have referred to him as an 10
dividual that hated her. The mothers caution ca
be reasonably accounted for only upon the tneOJ
that she feared that her daughter would lnplesaas
some one a0hom she did not aodnt amrtacdteQa nv
well knew that her daughter could not have rel ls
to the plaintiff as the one who ehated" hef, anu 'a ~
fore she checked her from mentioning any nahle. -
we will again refer to the theory, urged In oal w. @s
brief, that the person referred to Dy the oausasS.%
the very individual who subsequently married hsat &
to whom and herself there was at that time . rapth1a
engagement. The mention of such a name az SUI
time would have seriously compromised the aausasa
and the mothers instinct, keenly alive to tnas euass
quenee, caused her quick intervention % pfp.ess
mention of the name. This is the only theory INV,
accounts reasonably for what was said by the ng "
and the daughter on that night in the presenee, Ol ~
Chacher6 family. Here we remark that not ons Az
defendant, but the young women try to desaos ~ ss
evidence of Mr.. Chachere, his wife and daugneeL, agss
sit is the one that has a grudge against me; yoa A ss
he hates me- The young women deny posltlsses s y
any such statement was made, and the defen aann s ss.
he heard them make no such statement. VIZ d III
tradict the explicit statements of those very . s.sa
and disinterested witnesses, if the statement m IA 4
to Indie Veazie could be made to refer to ana In lps.Ios
the plaintiff? They knew very we'll that the 'l ~ 4.
ton given by Ludie Veazie to her mother 2, y otbs
truder could not reasonably be taken to reis aha : fha
HhnW ANV