The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1901-03-22

Counsel for John W. Thomas, who
spoke Monday, made forcible pre-
sentation of his side of the case. He
spoke at length upon the first plea of
the defense once in jeopardy-and
cited numerous decisions to sustain his
argument. Quite number of compe
tent critics said that his argument on
this point was one of the ablest exposi
tions they had heard in this court for
years. This plea, he said, was not in
troduced by the defense as a dodge or
by-piay, but as a sacred right that is
guaranteed to every American citizen.
a right that is part and parcel OF the
very fundamental principles of the
Governmeut-a right that has been
handed down by our forefathers, and
recognized by every court of the land as
an absolute defense against any criminal
procedure. The facts were that an in
dictment against John w. Thomas for
killing j. ID. Godfrey had been returned
by the grand jury, and upon that indict-
ment witnesses had been summoned, a
jury impanneled, and both sides an
nounced ready for trial. At that very
moment the life of John w. Thomas
was placed IN jeopardy, and when the
indictment was noile pressed the de-
PENDANT was legally acquitted The
second indictment charging him with
the murder of j. G Godfrey involved
the same facts and circumstances, the
same witnesses, the same prosecutor
and counsel. Mr.. Smiser quoted au-
thorites to show that the initials or
[ hristian name " ere immaterial in the
sight of the law, so long as the identity
of the person was established; and there
was no doubt that John W. Thomas was
charged in both indictments with killing
| identIcally the same person. Ii the
State had gone on with the trial u.der
the indictment of j. ID. Godfrey, under
the law no power on earth could have
saved John W. Thomas from any punish
ment that the jury might have inflicted.
W hat right had the great Sta of Ten
nessee to Indict a man a second time for
! the same otfense committed at the same
time and place? Why was it that
Thomas had been dragged from his home
on October 18th and placed in Jail, if it
was not for the same offense with which
he is now charged? Why was it that
!
Tor five long months, until the pallor on
his cheek and his trembling limbs
showed that it mattered little whether
the jury shortened his life or not? The
question for the jury to decide was
whether the defendant has been put
once in jeopardy and once discharged.
When the State withdrew its first in
1ictment and said it would prosecute
John w. Thomas no longer for the kill
ing of j. d. Godfrey, Thomas was then
a free man. my argument said the
speaker, lis not subterfuge, but it is
right and proper. The law hath allowed
it, and the court doth decree it,
Mr.. Smiser then entered upon dis
cussion of the second pIea-"not guilty.
referring to the characteristics of the
two men, and the feelings of unpleasant
ness that were engendered by Godfrey's
manner. He spoke of the various Cir
cumstances leading up to the killing
and said that Godfrey had been WarueC
to keep off Thomas place, and he knew
he had no right there. Thomas haC
said, You shan't come on this land, y
and he had right to keep him off
Godfrey had crowd of friends with hin
that day and he was not afraid to go.
| wonder why it is, continued the
speaker, that the State has attempted
to hide certain evidence, in order that il
might take the blood of one OF its citi
zens? Why did it not say in the begin
ming of this trial that Godfrey had {
pistol that carried 80 ball and that
fired five times? That he VS. careful
to see that it was in good fix, and tina
he had an extra round Of cartridges il
his pocket? | wonder why it is thai
that good woman never looked into he
trunk to see if Godfrey's pistol wa
there? | wonder if some counsel haC
not whispered into her ear that it was
not necessary? Why have these things
not been made plain? All, they haven
seen proper to do that; they want "blood
blood ~
Thomas had right to be where b
was on the morning of the killing: h
was attracted towards the place wher
the surveying party were by what n
thought to be stock in his turnip patch
he didn't go there with any malice il
his heart. Godfrey, on the contrary
was tresspassing; he was trampling upo
Thomas rights, and Thomas, doubtless
very naturally felt that he had been of
fered an insult. Whatever may be sal
by the opposing counsel, said the speak
| er, they can't get over the fact that God