The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-10-11


said: "Oh! Yes. he went down 10
Florida "A month ago." He eross-examined
Mr.. Brockwell himself. and there was
nothing in the evidence to show that this
was so. Mr.. Brockwell had said it was
the last time Mr.. Haywood had the pistol
fixed that he spoke of going to Florida
Mr.. Woodard interrupted To say he was
talking of the evidence of Mr.. Boyden,
not Mr. Rockwell.
Mr.. Holding read more of the evidence
of Mr.. Brockwell, He said Mr., Brock
we'll had spoken first of the relative merits
of the various kinds of ammunition. Mr..
Brockwell had said: Il think he was 60
ing at that time" Is there any better
time for busy man to go away than
Saturday evening. Mr.. Holding said he
considered that by this testimony the
State itself had furnished the reason Why
Mr.. Haywood was carrying a pistol Now
would they also be fair and furnish the
reason why Mr.. Skinner was carrying a
pistol?
Mr. Woodland: His mouth is closed "
The Judge: "The court cannot allow
Interruptions of counsel unless they speak
OF things not in evidence"
Mr. Holding Il beg your honor to al
low him TO interrupt me as often as
he wishes
The Judge: 81 cannot grant your
beg"
Mr.. Holding: "He furnishes me with
suggestions. Mr.. Holding then went on
to say that perhaps If Mr.. c.. M. Bushee
and Mr.. Charles E. Johnson had been pat
on the stand they would nave learned
why Mr.. Skinner was carrying 4 pistol.
Their mouths were not closed
Counsel for the prosecution had sc IN
fit to besmirch as much as possible She
evidence of Hocutt and Schmitz. The
evidence of Miss Mattye Pace absolutely
sustained the testimony of Hoeutt ard
Schmitz. They he'd testified that when
they first saw Haywood and Skinner they
were in heated argument Mr.. Holding
would like to know if a map of heated
argument could be carried to Mr.. Schmitz
i'm Baltimore. Mr.. Fuller had said Miss
Mattye Pace had seen Mr.. Haywood lay
ing it off upon the lapel of Mr.. Skin
ner's overcoat. He was then and there
threatened by Mr.. Skinner and was stand
ing pleading with him. And yet they SUP.
press the evidence of Miss Pace, who saw
it all Miss Pace says Hocutt and Schultz
told the truth
The theory of the State had been de-
stroyed by their own witnesses in addi-
tion to the witnesses for the defense. As
to the little boy, did not the jury know
that a little child will always, when
properly questioned. tell the truth? Chill
dren have not yet formed the habit of
lying Mr. Daniel had subjected him to a
searching DISCRIMINATION, but he stuck
to 1t that he saw Mr. Skinner standing
there before Mr.. Haywood got there Toat
makes it correspond with the testimony
of Mr.. Logan Terrell and Mr.. Lindsay
The little boy said that Mr.. Skinner
hacked out on the grass plat when Mr..
Haywood fired. Does not that confirm
M. Simms evidence, and Mr.. Briggs?
Why did the prosecution deserts Mr.. Briggs
as one of their witnesses? His evidence
would confirm Mr. Simms and Ned Barnes
and the others. Was that the way 10
deal with juries? Ought they not to have
put Mr.. Briggs on the stand when he
was their witness?
Mr.. Holding then quoted authorities TO
show that even if Mr.. Skinner had had
no pistol in his pocket, Mr.. Haywood
ould have been justified in shooting If
Mr.. Skinner had put his left hand in rs
pocket, if Mr.. Haywood had reasonable
cause to fear for his lite. Mr.. Wooderd
had constantly referred to Mr.. Haywood
as a lawyer. Did not Mr. Woodland Know
that Mr.. Haywood was not being tried as
lawyer, but as 4 citizen?
Mr.. Woodland said that was not far,
that he only referred to the fact of NJ
Haywood being q lawyer and carrying a
concealed weapon.
The Judge Which you had no right
to do, bur since you did so counsel has
q right to reply"
Mr. Holding wondered if Mr.. Woodland
meant to appeal to supposed popular
reiudice against lawyers. Mr.. Woodland
said that Mr.. Haywood was a murderer
unless he proved there was necessity
for the killing There was no authority
in the law for this statement.
Mr.. Woodland declared he was being
misquoted, and the Judge said he could
not remember the words of counsel.
Mr.. Holding then read from the sCenog-
raphic report that Mr.. Woodland had said
that Mr.. Haywood was a murderer I'm
less he could show that there was ne
cessity to save his own life or prevent
serious bodily injury. There was no sGcA
law as that in North Carolina, declared
Mr.. Holding. He then read from declslo.s
to show that necessity was not required.
but only a reasonable belief even IL it
be mistaken, that the defendants life was
III danger. lie Tedu from the tlsI <AiF-
bama, the Sth Michigan, the 23d Michigan,
the SSth n. c., State against Nash, he
132nd N. c., State against Barrett.
The law was that the jury was isrt
bound to find that Mr.. Skinner had muf-
der in his heart against Mr.. Haywood If
the facts were such that Mr.. Haywood
thought he was going to draw a weapon
and use it, he was justified in taking the
l;fa of Mr. Skinner
Mr. Holding then said that the prosetu-
tion had been of such a nature that the
jury ought to hesitate to allow a single
contention made by the State Mr.
Woodland had said that he considered the
criticism of Mr.. Pou an honor, and that
was one reason the speaker was replying
to 1t. The jury knew the facts, how
certain evidence had been suppressed by
the prosecution, although they knew it
would lessen the offense, if not acqut the
defendant. In this connection Mr. Held
ing read from Bishop on the duties of a
solicitor in prosecuting for the State
Then he read from the 18th Mississippi
on this subject.
Mr.. Holding finally concluded with an