The Opelousas courier., 1901-11-23

#%trndar SulGoU AIDCTbED1tcdU III every Darficular onl
IA the caution of the mother to the daughter was ~
SrShther mentioning he's NAME. 1t is reasonahIa ~
HIM that Albert, being supplanted by his brother
TTsward, felt much chagrined, and that he manifested
ii II feelings amounting to angry jealousy to her in
~ PERSISTENT way, accounts for her descr;b;nn b;r,
MA one who hated her" or had ga grudoe aea;nst
60 We think it more reasonable to accenf This
@aarg than the one which the Court seems to have adj
sei. Our theory also accounts reasonably for the
Taaue which the young women made in their acconnt
Jtbe occurrence, they having first positively affirmed
sst they did not and could not recognize the intruder.
& saa thereafter asserting positively that tlley did yec'
seas him. Here we remind the Court that the
~SSsbpsant and both young women make no attempt TO
sslain the change in their testimony, but do deuu
%satiuely that they eoer made any contradictory state.
rpnts. The two young women whose testimony the
rmrt appears to have accepted as the truth. and
mon which the opinion seems in great part to rest,
vsre cOntradicted directly by the testimony of Mr..
phert Chaehere, Mrs. Chachere, Miss Chareher6.
sherif Frazee, G. g. Duson, as also of Chester
Reanchamp and Dallas Jones, upon the very points
ander discussion and to which this Court seems to
I attach great significance. 1t seems to us, therefore.
4 mi their testimony is shown to be entirely unworthy
n redence and that the Court should not have
Z accented it as the truth, in view of the fact that in
! doing SO it must necessarily disregard the testimony
If me seUep totally dssRtereSted a~Uftnesses above named.
VIE know Of no case in which the wellapproved
maxim Of n asuS in uno, falsus in omnibusn better
I antilles than to these two witnesses of the defendant.
4 Here we also remark that if our theory as to the
4 asntty of the person in that room ON that night be
III correct one, then in that event the change in the
goAng womens statements is fully and satisfactorily
poanted for, and, We affirm, can be accounted for on
radher reasonable theory.
From these citations it appears to us conclusive
tst defendant did not knoao on the night of the
eaurrence that his daughter claimed to have recog-
aea the man who entered her room. We believe the
#FTlenee establishes the fact that he did not know.
mdia any one else, until sometime the following
IN that either of the two young women had eUen
metg connected the plaintiffs name with the affair.
N8believe the evidence shows that even as late as
M1ay Of the following week. when @. G. Duson had
~nHterview with them, the most they had stated to
Mfone about the identity of the intruder was what
Ag said to him They could not swear it was plain
M bat they thought sO.n
We submit that it is impossible that such informa-
t8 as these young women must have given to the
8asndsnt before he made the affidavit can be made to
M6y A charge of the magnitude of that laid at the
elBthaAs door. Being aware of these contradictions
their testimony, which had grown from q positive
1geHmer on the night in question of any knowledge
NHhe identity OF the man, to the statement made u
SAk later t0Mr. Duson that they simply Thought
kKss plaintiff, can he, as q reasonably cautions and
ksalenb man, have considered this as sufficient proof
#Rk fhe Plaintiff was guilty
Mhen this evidence as given by these two main wit
#@Sea Of the defendant is fully studied and analysed,
seems to us irresistible that it is totally worthless.
II Naaess who states one thing before a trial and
#aMaAeE upon the trial lis unworthy of belief, but here
SgBhEtWo principal witnesses, we might say sole wit
#NHeA of the defendant, being proved to have changed
*ag testim0ny THREE TIMES; and this Court lis asked
#9 1shfy aud absOlve the defendant from the charge
R Asatntlng a malicious prosecution on the faith of
&Mhtestinony! Is the life or liberty or property of
sNEzen safe if the court should declare this to be the
Weelaim to have established by competent proof
8Aaft ae testimony OF these two young women is utterly
sgFukahe, CONTRADICTORY and FALSE. We be-
we That We have set forth in our main brief the real
A9aYe which prompted the resort to such practices,
Haenea the Court has laid some stress upon the tes+
Maag OF the witnesses called by the defense to destroy
as~pelntIh's abb, We may be %pardoned for referring
Nho natter.
aAeteatim0ny given by Ferdinand Deiean, the wit
AA % which the Court refers in discussing the proof
NA@ zee whereabouts of the plaintiffs brother, Allen,
VIZ night III question:, is shown to be absolutely
1900 With that testimony disposed OF, the alibi
RAehahed BIZ the plaintiff was perfect and shows be-
iAe shadow of doubt that the plaintiff could not
sEs peen the man who entered the defendants
$s@ I'M have discussed this branch of the case
AF ~ oar main brief, PIP. 63 to 67, and we respect
@8 invite the Courts attention to same, feeling con
st baag the statement just made will be accepted.
eEseFt u0 false testimony by the prosecutor, a practice
sseAa ~ proven against the defendant, creates a con-
s%sss presumption against good faith and probable
8Me see i Green, sec. 1876. note I.
AR Nonrt in its decree has stated that this is a
sg where the defense of ssadvice of COUNSEL applies,
%s soes on to say that the defendant aas We think,
sNS ad before the prosecuting officer of the State,D
slseImatlon within his knowledge. The statement
@S Maaes IN the decree that the bill of information
w ANa 1y the district attorney without consultation
Ae defendant. We here desire to respectfully
1870 ron these views of the Court, for we hold, first,
81 3Aae aefense of advice of counsel, even fit were
@%1HRse GOOD, cannot shield this defendant, who is q
%asss himself. The very purpose and essence of the
E@Ssaas nat the prosecutor is protected from an action
images where he i'm good faith sought the advice Il
sasSeI and fully and fairly laid before him all the
NssAah MS knowledge or which he could haN0 ais
~ ##H& &H#E fha nynTaIon - dun dilinnnan VnQnlfARfiV @