The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-10-14
For ConvaIescents

not man of character. Hocutt had
| talked, too, at Henderson, and told a diff
| ferent story there
| The little Thomas boy had testified that
| he watched the two men, one coming out
of the postoffice and the other out OF the
| court house. They met and talked and in
a minute one Knocked the other down, and
! jumped back about twelve feet, and the
other got up and shot him. That was the
| evidence that COUNSEL had gone into such
ecstacies over. Mack Fuller, Mr.. Simms,
| Ned Barnes, did not see Skinner stop and
| talk to anybody before meeting Mr.. Hay
wood nor did Logan Terrell or Mr.. Lind
say The cross-eXamination showed that
| that child could be led to say anything
| his examiner wanted him to say. And
Capt. Day actually said that the prosecu-
ton was holding back the evidence of that
man the little boy on cross-examination
had said Skinner talked to. Then the lit
tie boy had not mentioned to his father
that he saw Skinner put his hand to his
| hip pocket, the most important feature of
| the whole thing.
Ned Barnes had said he told DR.. JAS
Mckee that very night about what he saw
|
| Mckee here to say whether or not Ned
had told him the same story. But no.
| they had gone all the way to Pikeville
to get Wiley B. Fort to say what Barnes
| had told him.
The defense had dropped George Burst
sight quicker than the prosecution had
dropped Sauls
Capt L. w. Smiths testimony showed
that Skinner was going away from Hay
wood with bis left back toward Haywood,
provided Haywoods position had not
changed Mr. Daniel said the saddest
thing he had seen in this trial was his
good old friend Col. Harris proving the
character OF George Burst after the tes-
timony he gave. But it ha@ to be done.
George Burst had said that Haywood had
fired both shots while Skinner was going
away from him, and that he rested his PTS
to on his left hand at both shots.
Those were the nine witnesses. Aud it
was the duty of the jury to convict the
defendant on that evidence Of his He
must show beyond a doubt that he WIS
compelled to shoot TO save his own LIE
i Did the jury believe it was the intention
of Ludlow Skinner to kill the defendant
/ He never drew his pistol. That he tried to
draw it was an assumption of the witnesses
that was not supported by the testimony
i If ne intended to shoot Haywood, why
didn't he go up and dose? Why should he
| knock him down and then shoot him?
/ But Haywood had time to get up, get at
his pistol, get it in proper position to fire,
and then fire.
Then it was true beyond possibility of
L.. 4
killed this young man. And was there any
need of this second shot? Mr.. Johnson
/ testified that there was period of three to
I 1--WE seconds between the two shots. It was
time enough to see that Skinner, if he had
ever intended to kill Haywood, had
changed his mind Suppose both shots
had missed and Haywood was being tried
for assault and battery it is plain what
/ the verdict would be. Suppose they were
tried for affray, would not Haywood be
| guilty as we'll as Skinner, and if so Hay
wood is now guilty of manslaughter at
| least
| Mr.. Daniel declared he was not trying
| to serve two masters. He was not APP
pearing for Ludlow Skinner for if mat
| tered not to the dead man. But he wore
upon his breast the white flower of a
blameless life, and 1t was not to be lie
| lieved that ne was going that afternoon
| to take the life of a fellow man.
| Mr.. Daniel concluded at ten minutes af-
ter five, having spoken for two hours and
| ten minutes
COL. T. M. ARGO.
| Col Argo then began the closing argu-
ment for the defense, the last speech III
the long trial The speaker declared that
ne was contending against groundless
and unjust accusation, and that he meant
every word of this. His sincere convic-
| ton was that his client was innocent of
any crime.
| Mr.. Daniel had asked how the criticism
| of the prosecutions methods would en-
| Tighten the jury, and it had been charged
that it was deliberately eoncocted
scheme to create prejudice in the minds
Of the jury. Most Of the argument on
| the part of the State had been a defense
of their conduct, and an explanation of
their suppresslng testimony. They had
] said the grand jury was responsible for the
| Indictment. They must have thought the
! jury was ignorant that the bill of indict-
ment was always drawn by the Solcito,
! And all the facts that are now known
were known then when this bill was drawn
for murder in the first degree For Mr.
Simms spoke of what he had seen on Sun
day, and that reduced it at most to man
| slaughter.
Murder III the second degree was Il kill
ing with malice, without premedtation