The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-10-15

Z
favor of innocence What was that duty
to come here to Wake county to admin
lister Justice? Their duty was merely to
their private retainers, the private prose
cutors who had employed them.
The only question arising from the cyl.
dence in this case is whether Mr.. Hay
wood is guilty of any otTense, even the
lowest included in this bill OF indct-
ment. Mr.. Daniel had sad he had not
heard a complete statement of the case.
He would proceed to give It to MIN. Or
the 21st day of last February one of the
citizens of this town went to the county
court house in response to request from
the Clerk of the Court. His business
finished, he left, saluting his friends rs
usual. AS he reached the southern steps
OF the post office on his way to his office,
he was met and accosted by another cltl-
zen Of the town. They engaged IN con,
versation that was gentle, according &c
Mr. Woods. In second he is struck by
a blow on the cheek so powerful as to
fell him to the ground. When he lifts
his head he sees his opponent-a larger
and younger man, s or 10 feet away, his
eyes blazing with wrath and his mouth
set in what looked like deadly determl-
nation, with his hand on his hip pocket.
apparently waiting for his adversary to
rise sufficiently for his body 10 present
itself before him. Mr.. Haywood knew
the young mans mother had been buried
the day before, and under these unnatural
conditions the defendant must have
thought the situation desperate one,
and that his life was in imminent danger.
1t was an abnormal state of affairs, Tor
a brave, affectionate, tender man to take
,1oh cfnr
not misjudge. There was danger. Mr..
Haywood saved himself by instant action.
He drew and fired. His adversary jump
ed away to the curbing under the sting
Of the ball, his muscle paralyzed and his
hand still in his pocket, as Mr.. Norris
and Mr.. Strong admitted Mr. Haywood
seeing himself still in danger, fired again,
and then lowered his weapon.
1t was not only a mans privilege, but
his duty to protect his life. The jury
must put themselves in Mr. Haywood's
position, with all the surrounding cir
cumstances and conditions. Was it not
reasonable to suppose that death or great
bodily harm was intended by Mr.. Skin
ner. The defendant is simply required
to satisfy the jury that he was in apprc-
hension. He need not prove it beyond
a possible doubt.
Did the evidence prove that this ac
count of the affair was correct? Mr..
Gilliam's recollection of the evidence was
woefully defective. Mr. Daniel had made
the fairest presentation on their side,
but he had used the evidence with the
skill of trained lawyer, and had put
wrong construction on some OF it, anu
omitted the most vital part in the first
place, there was not the slightest EVIL
dence of any provocation on the part OF
Mr. Haywood. Mr.. Woodland, in quoting
Miss Pace, had used the word "remOn-
strate" to describe Haywoods attitude,
but demonstrate does not admit of any
provocative method of speech. Mr.. Gil
liam had said that Mr.. Simms saw them
struggling together, but MIR. Simms
qualified that. Mack Fuller said that Skin
ner took the lapel of Haywood's over
coat and struck him. Would not Hay
wood struggle if the other man should
assault him in this way? Mr.. Woodard
had said that Skinner had struck him IN
contempt and walked off. Treated hin
ike a dog. But that was wild conjura-
ton 1t was theorizing. We must deal
with hard facts Mr.. Strong had had
cyclone theory. There was not one bit
CT evidence of any difference between tie
men, as Mr.. Gillian had in
timated What Mr.. Ludlow SINNERS
motive was, it is unnecessary to inquire,
his action shows the presence of a motive.
When Mr.. Gillian says there was a DIFF
ference between the men, he admits thaS
Skinner had grudge against Haywood.
What that grudge was VIC don't know.
The prosecuting attorneys, associated
with SINNERS nearest relatives, know
what that grudge was. Why did they not
tell us?
There was not single witness on the
part of the State who saw the beginning
OF the controversy. Only two witnesses
saw the first shot, George Wilson and
Jones Fuller.
Ned Barnes was the nearest witness to
the affair. Why should not the jury be-
lieve him? His character had been prov
ed. Barnes says Skinner jumped back,
and he saw his right hand next to him
self and could not see his left hand
What mattered it to Mr.. Haywood whetL
er it was the right hand or the left?
And the prosecuting attorneys said Hay
wood must show an urgent necessity
That was not the law. 1t need only be
an apparent necessity. Mr.. Simms had
also said the same thing in effect, and
they had adopted Mr.. Simms' testimony.
| He should think they would be ashamed to
come in here and laudate Mr.. Simms al
ter some of the friends OF this prosecution
had branded Mr.. Simms as no villain or
scape-gallowS had ever been bounded.
Now what change was there. Was he
sanctfied? But it suits their
present need. There is something in Mr.,
| Simms testimony that they think
they can use against this defendant. Do
they accept Barnes testimony? Why not
that as well as Simms? Mr.. Simms sad
he could not see the left hand, nor did
Mr. Briggs And why didn't they accept
the evidence of little Walter Thomas
Col Argo went on to speak of the
cross-examination of the little boy. and
how Mr. Daniel had led him on. but could
not make him contradict himself on the
main point. If the boy had meant to lie
he could have gone on and described the
second shot as well as the first.
Mack Fuller had not told Mr.. Norris
what he had told the speaker, because he
was suspicious, because one oil the best
citizens of his age was being abused be-
cause he said he had seen what Fuller