The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-10-07
A Brush Between Judge
and Counsel.
Continued from First Page)

preclate the information we have than
your Honor Is, who has possibly not
heard 1t. Mr.. Norris has stated that the
information Is derived respecting Mr..
Hocutt and respecting Mr. Schmitz from
parties who are here willing TO go on the
stand. They are statements made to us
time and time again by men of character
and of standing in each instance, and we
thought it was our duty to bring up these
matters"
The Court: Il have stated to you that
If you believed these matters, it was not
only your privilege but your duty to
bring them out
Mr.. Gillian: But Your Honor started
cut by stating your disapprobation.
| The Court: Il stated that | didn't
think all of those charges were true /
have stated, and state again, that if you
have reasonable grounds to believe these
charges, 1t is your duty to bring them
out But every witness for the defense
has been so attacked, and 1 thought it
was plan TO browbeat and beat down
every witness offered. II you are acting
IN good faith / do not wish to disturb
you. But l wish you to make no I'M
warranted attack on witnesses Cor either
side, because if a witness comes into
court, he has the right to protection by
the court, and shall attempt to protect
| him. Otherwise, everv man that comes
into court will run the risk of having
his character blackened'
Capt. Day: That cross examination OF
Mr. Simms was cruel. and they were ex-
aiming him and trying to drag him
down, when they had it IN their power to
bring Miss Mattye Pace to prove the
|
moned her; yet they made promise that
| they would not to Mr. Fuller
The Court: Didn't you let her go
away"
Capt. Day: 1--WE did not know it,
Mr.. Norris: Yes, you did, you knew
the same things
Capt. Day: IF Miss Mattye Pace had
been here, she would have testified to
the same things that Mr.. Fuller testified
to. Can the State of North Carolina
make a contract that when it is trying
man for his life, it will not summon a
witness? l do say that every word His
Honor said about the cross examination
OF Mr.. Simms was justly merited.'
The Court: well l thought it was,
but If these gentlemen are conscientious
in it and believe these charges, then l
in that manner but I tell them it is
their duty to do it. But under the cir
cumstances | did not believe the charges
could be we'll founded, and, as | stated
just now, it is the courts duty to pro-
tect witnesses who are being improperly
cross-examined. That matter is ended
now Bring in the jury, Mr.. Sheriff"
EVIDENCE FOR DEFENSE.
Dewitt Smith, of Raleigh, was called to
the stand first. He had known Charles
B. Hocutt thirteen years, and his char
acter was good.
Cross-examined by Senator Norris, Mr..
| Smith said he did not know Mr.. Hocutt
had been married twice. Asked if he did
not know Mr. Hocutt had been divorced
from his first wife on account of adultery
! with woman named Jenny Robinson,
Col. Hinsdale objected. saying a charac-
ter witness could not be asked about a par
ticular fact, even upon cross-examination.
Soliciio Daniel argued. the question, and
the 5as considerable consulting of au
tholf.ies and precedent as to the rule OF
practice IN this subject The Judge said
ne had oeen of the opinion that such a
question was allowed, but after reading
| the authorities cited by Col. Hinsdale, he
would have to see authorities on the othe,
side 10 convince him that he was original
| ly right in his opinion. Finally Judge
| PEBBLES said the whole matter was dis.
cussed in a case III the 121st North Caro-
| lima, and ne sent for that. Still the Judge
said he must admit that he was still IN
doubt, although he had not been at first
in. doubt. Accordingly he admitted the
question. and allowed defendant an e.
ception
Then the question was asked: "Do you
not know that witness Hocutt was dl
vorced from his first wife for living in
adultery with one Jenny Robinson Col.
Argo then objected to the form of the
question, as it was an attempt to prove o
separate and collateral fact. A character
witness should not be asked as to his
sonal knowledge of a particular fact That
was different from asking whether he had
ever heard of it or not in general talk
The Judge ruled that the question must
be asked as at first, Have you not heard,
ETC. Witness answered no. nor had he
heard Hocutt had abandoned his first wife
This whole matter consumed nearly an
| hour.
| r. H. McManus was then called Lived
| in Baltimore. Had known Mr.. Schmtz
eight or ten years. and his character was
good. Cross-examined by Mr. Daniel
Mr. McManus said he was not under sub
poena. On redirect he said he had been
subpoenaed at former trial.
Rev T. N Ivey. editor Raleigh Chris
tian Advocate, testified to the good char.
acter OF Mr. Simins.
S. w. Whiting, of Raleigh. also testi-
fled to Mr.. Simms' good character.
HOCUTTS EVIDENCE.
Then Charles B. Hocutt, of Raleigh
was examined by Col Harris. He saiG
Mr.. Schmitz and he were coming down
Fayetteville street together. Stopped
near the corner of Martin street He re-
marked to Mr.. Schmitz about the post
office, and just then they stepped off the
curb. He noticed two men talking IN
front of the post office, and by the ges-
lures of their hands he judged they were
in an argument, and either he or Mr.
Schmitz remarked that they were quar-.
reling. Witness saw Mr. Skinner draw
back his hand and strike Mr. Haywood