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

character witnesses? Had not the jury
noticed that in a great many cases where
it was desired to divert their minds from
the real issues it was a very common
practice to introduce ghttering array
of witnesses? He asked the jury If the
evidence of the Governor and all the dlg
nitaries that had testified had helped
them one particle in arriving at the facts
of this case. Did it add anything to the
weight of a mans evidence what position
in the State he held? 1t was just the Old
trick of counsel with a desperate case,
trying to divert the minds of the jury
from the main issues, when they had very
few facts to go upon.
1t was one o'clock, and court adjourned
until half-past two.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr.. Wodard, having noticed at some
length the criticism of counsel, stated
that he would then address himself to the
real facts that were to be determined
by the Jury. They were here for pur-
pose. The State did not prosecute in
order to take revenge, for as the pre-
ceding counsel had said, the great Law
giver had said: Vengeance is mine. But
the State had its duty to perform when
ever a law was broken, and 1t prosecuted
with pain and sorrow.
1t was admitted that Ernest Haywood
had killed Ludlow Skinner on the streets
of Raleigh on the 21st of February last.
What was the effect of that admission :
If the State had been obliged to prove
that, it would have thrown the burden
on the State. But as it is the defend
ant must satisfy the jury that every cir
cumstance of mitigation was such as
would render the killing mansaughter,
and not murder in the second degree.
If Haywood stood there and shot this man
without reasonable apprehension of his
own life, then the law, and not the jury,
says he is guilty of murder in the second
degree but the law is silent. 1t can
only speak through the jury, who rep
resent its makers.
Now, were those circumstances JUST
fable? The State says they were not. The
defendant is guilty unless he shall salts
fy this jury that he took that life from
necessity. This is referred to by the
older law-writers as "the blamabe ne
cessity," for the law regards jealousy the
life of citizens Ernest Haywood is guilty
of murder unless he can satisfy the jury
that he took the life of Ludlow Skinner
from necessity to preserve his own life
or to prevent serious bodily harm. OF
that the jury was the judge, not the coun
sci on the other side, Or the defendant
himself. Was there a reasonable fear?
The defendant, like every other man, IS
presumed to know the law, and more
so, for he is a lawyer and an expounder
of the law. And yet We find this lawyol'
deliberately violating a law he had sworn
to obey, the law against carrying con-
cealed deadly weapons. From the moment
that sane man, knowing his duty, know
ing the law, goes and deliberately puts
in his pocket deadly weapon, he has
then and there taken the first step as a
murderer. He has lost that moral force,
which is the first step toward his becom-
ing a murderer Counsel had seen the
force of that. They had seen that there
was no excuse for a man carrying a pls-
tol around with him on the streets OF
Raleigh So they tried to invent an
excuse by asking Mr.. Brockwell If he
had not said he was going to Florida.
The catch in that pistol explained why
that first shot did not kill. The defend
ant had been in the habit of the trigger
pulling hard Now it was fixed so that
it would go off, almost at touch. 1t
went off toe Don. That explains that
hrst shot.
On the day of the homicide we seen the
defendant going to the court house. 6ut
the defense has tried to show that it
was possible Mr. Skinner might have seen
defendant from his window on Whining
ton street, and gone out in search OF
Dr,f hot
was a knife that would cut both ways.
At this point Judge PEBBLES stated
that he would charge the jury not to pay
any attention to the evidence as to the
possibility of Mr.. Skinner seeing Mr.. E&y-
wood from his window or vice versa.
Mr.. Woodland said he was very glad OF
this, as il would save time and trouble
He then went on to say that we find Mr.
Skinner in the postoffice getting a letter
reading 1t, and starting off with a friend
That Is the last we see of HIM Then
we see defendant in the court house and
we have the evidence of Mr., Puss that
II was an incredibly short time after lie
lett his office that he heard the shots.
Now. how did it happen that MIR Hay
wood was up on that raised place Only
one witness for the defense had endeav-
ored to explain that, and he had offered
the explanation Of Mr.. Skinner, who only
weighed 12S pounds, striking Mr.. Hay
wood so that he knocked him clear over
on the parapet. That was the only at
tempt at explanation. How did Ludlow
Skinner come to be up there close to Mr..
Haywood. Was Ludlow Skinner the ag-
gressor? They made much out of the fact
that he had a pistol. No one knows
what he had it for. 1t may have been to
have 1T fixed like Mr.. Haywood Now
counsel had dwelt upon the fact that de-
ceased was not accustomed to the use OF
pistol. Such man would have carried
1t where he could have reached it quickly
II he had expected a difficulty He would
not have relied upon his skill! TO reach
1T. As matter of fact he had an over
coat on, and the pistol in the hip poelt-
ct of his trousers.
The defendant must have placed himself
on that parapet. New, when was that
blow struck? II acre was blow, be
was glad to admit it, but they were
obliged to prosecute according to the
bill of Indictment. There was no proof
that a blow had been struck. If
there had been an alteration in the
cause OF justice Mr.. Woodland thanked
Mr.. Pou for supplying the testimony That
7 i