The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1901-03-22
ARGU MENT IN
THOMAS CASE
Continued from 1st Page.

llldls w ildb kdllt WIS III gu EHDIle-
men of the jury, have already asked
yourselves that question, have no doubt. !
1t forces itself upon every intelligent
mind And the States proof is lacking
in something because it does not ans wer
that question. The entire proof in
the odse 10 unreal, nnintelligible, untrue,
incomplete, until that question is
answered somehow by somebody. The
defendant answers it when he tells you
that Godfrey said an kill you" That
makes the meaning of the other wit.
nesses ineligible and complete. Then
we can understand what they mean.
None of them were as close to Godfrey
as the defendant was. They say they
did not hear him. Perhaps they
did rot, but that does not argue
that he did not speak The part
Of the conversation they did hear,
suggests that something was said or
done that they did not see or hear. If
Godfrey pulled his pistol that might
have drawn from the defendant the re.
mark, eff that's your game we'll play
it, Or If Godfrey said "I'll kill you"
that would explain the remark. But
certain it is, gentlemen, that something
was said or done, more than the wit
nesses for the State have seen or heard
or told, and that something gave
the defendant the right to draw
and shoot to save his life The defend
ant had the right to be where he was: he
had the right under the law to eject
Godfrey from those premises; he had the
right to use sufficient force to do so: and
if in doing SO he met with resistance
and saw or believed himself to be in
real danger OF death or great bodily
harm, he had the right under the con
sttntion and the law, the God given
right, to defend himself
w. B Turner, Esq,
counsel FOR the State, was the first
speaker Saturday afternoon. The gen.
tleman preceding him, he said, had
spoken great deal about the rights and
liberties of a fellow citizen on being
twice in jeopardy; but it could not be
successfully commended, under the con
stitution and laws that the defendant
had been twice placed in jeopardy for the
killing of j. G. Godfrey, nor that any
justice had ever been melted out to him
for the crime. Not word of proof had
been introduced to show that j G.. God
frey was ever known as j. d. Godfrey.
So far as the proof shows, continued
the speaker, everything was quiet and
peaceable until it became known that
Godfrey was going to marry Mrs. Fly.
The defendant, as tenant on Mrs Fly's
land, had been dealing with an old,
feeble man and Mrs. Fly; and women, we
know, are not always the best mana.
gers. The idea of the marriage didn't
please Thomas, as he knew it wouldn't
be to his interest to deal with a man
who knew something about business
so he set about to devise some scheme
for preventing it, and began abusing
and slandering man whose character
was above reproach. Thomas i'll feeling
against Godfrey began at this time, and
he was never satisfied until he laid him
in his grave.
The contract with Thomas for the
rental of the land gave Godfrey a right
to go on the place and see that the con-
tract was being carried out, and that
the land was being properly cared for.
The proof showed that Godfrey had
done everything in his power to pre-
vent a difficulty from start to finish.
The defense had attempted to show that
the attaching of Godfrey's wheat was a
cause for provocation: but the speaker
cited law to show that any legal pro-
cedure, no matter how offensive, could
not be taken as provocation for a crime.
No kind of a tresspass would have
justified the defendant in killing God
frey, so long as Godfrey was not in the
act of perpetrating felony. The quar-
rel on the Pike showed that Godfrey
had tried to avoid difficulty, and that
Thomas was the aggressor. When did
human life get to be so cheap that one
man could kill fellow being as he
would a sheep killing dog, and then
come into court and ask to be turned
loose?
Thomas had made no effort to avoid a
difficulty. On the contrary he bad
sought one, and, from his own test.
mony, we learn that he had been carry
ing his pistol three or four days previous
to the killing. The speaker rehcarsed
the witnesses testimony in regard to
the killing, and said there could be nc
doubt that it was murder in the first
degree. The defense had attempted to
show that the statements of the witnesses
Contradicted each other, but all OF
them asreed on the essential points, and
those points clearly showed murder in
the first degree. No four men. of
course, could look upon difficulty, and
then come away and tell the details
exactly alike.
Every particle of testimony showed
that the deepest malice existed on the
part of the defendant. There was
deliberatiun and determination in his
act; it was written on his countenance
even when he passed the surveying
party. while advancing towards God.
frey; he had been warned against sc
rash an act, but he paid no attention &c
his friends advice. A clearer case Of
murder in the first degree could not be
found in the annals of Jurisprudence
elaboration, generalization and malice
all had been clearly proven in the
violence. In closing. Mr.. Turner said
I Gentlemen of the the jury, so long az
J rhine committed in this community Is
I allowed to go UNPUBLISHED. so long vii
crimes be committed. believe that the
facts in this case will show to you thai
the most sacred law of our land has
been violated, and believe you will re
turn a verdict accordingly"
w. c. Whitthorne, Esq,
counsel for defense, followed Mr.. Tur
ner. He reviewed the testimony in thu
case for the purpose of showing tina