The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-10-13

Capt. w n. Smelling, of Raleigh. said
Hocutt's general reputation was bad.
Col. Harris brought out that he and
ltocutt were members Of the Central N.
E. church.
R. E. Prince, of Raleigh. Knew Hocutt |
and his reputation was bad.
Cross-examined by Capt. Dav. witness
said his character was bad for dishonesty.
not paying his debts. He owed him be-
tween 80 cents and $1.OO.
A. A. Wood, of Raleigh. Knew Ho-
cults reputation to be not very good.
w. j. Moore, OF Raleigh, also gave He
cult a bad reputation.
IN response to Capt. Day, witness sale |
he credited Hocutt once with a quar-
ter's worth of meat. but never expected |
to get the money, and had never charged |
him with it.
JUDGE VS.. COUNSEL AGAIN.
linen Mr.. Norris requested that tile
jury be retired.
Mr.. Norris then said that il was on
Tuesday that Judge PEBBLES had expressed
his dlsapprobatiOn of the method of ex-
aiming the witnesses for defense. Now
counsel Tor the State had in court the
witnesses to prove the truth Of those
charges mentioned against Mr.. Hocutt and
Nj. Schmitz, regarding the scandal at
Southern Pines and the stealing in John
ston county.
Judge PEBBLES said the court ~certinly
did decline to try at this time those
scandals IN Baltimore and Southern Pines
and those thefts in Johnston county.
After a sharp little passage of word,
between counsel for State and Judge pee
bles, the Judge said that he omitted to
say the other day, when he said it was
the duty OF counsel to bring in any testi-
mony they might have to discredit a wit
ness, If they believed any facts to be
= really true, he omitted, he said, to say
i. that he could not see how counsel for
the State could have any doubt of the
fact that there had been a struggle and
a blow struck, and on that account lie
di0 not consider that anything should be
: gone into simply with the object Of hum;l
q Eating the witnesses who said there had
O been a fight and a blow struck.
e Mr.. Gillian replied that there was evil
/ dCnce that two of the main witnesses
e for the defense had told different stories
OF the affair, saying that there had been
z no fight, although they testified that there
had been. Now. if these witnesses had
a lied about this, any other facts that might
o be brought out to show the bad character
d of these witnesses were perfectly proper,
and that 1t was besides the duty Of the
attorneys to bring it out.
Mr.. Woodland said that, while he did not
4 believe that His Honor had meant the
ether day to humiliate counsel for the
State, nevertheless such had been the
effect of his remarks, as evidenced by
the headlines in the afternoon paper.
I Judge PEBBLES said he c~ertinly had not
intended to humiliate anyone, bat was
II only endeavoring to protect 6, witness.
t He had TOO high a regard for counsel to
;" think OF doing anything of this kind
'e Some of them were his bosom friends
n Still, he was not responsible for what
Of the newspapers might say. If the papers
N had not treated them right, they should
n call the newspapers to account.
Then the jury was called in, and i'm
x mediately sent out again, in order thai
g the matter Of introducing expert medica'
testimony might be discussed.
]. EXPERT TESTIMONY QUESTION.
5" Mr.. Gillian said the question now wa:
w whether these gentlemen who had beef
be summoned as experts should be allowed
to testify IN rebuttal Of evidence Offered
he by the defense. He knew His Honor hat
If expressed the opinion that this shouit
4 have been brought out at first as direc
Ia evidence. But His Honor must, in hi
\ experience, be aware OF the laXity of tn
rules on this matter. This was IN it
real essence rebuttal testimony. The evl
:, dence had shown that 1t was a nateria
'N question where deceased was standini
III when the fatal shot was received. Ais,
III material, but somewhat secondary to that
3, was the question which shot had been I'll
VI fatal one. The evidence, at the time til
)t- State closed its evidence, was that tn
fatal shot had been received when do
'er ceased was about midway from the cur
hit to the car track. Mr.. Jones Fuller's tes
II, timony had made that very clear. Hi
testimony negatives the idea that h
was injured by the first shot. while
ad Indicates that it was the second shot tia
r. struck him, as shown by the actions @
- Mr.. Skinner at the time the second sho
~ was fired. All the evidence cf the Stat
- was to the effect that it was he secon
shot that killed. and the State appreciate
- the fact that it was necessary TO prov
" that the second was the fatal shot. j
Il cannot be that the State was expecte
"A to anticipate the defense. How could
lld anticipate that the defense was going t
re. try to show that the first shot was I'll
fatal one. fired when Skinner was with
Il few feet of defendant.
That in effect is the contention of t.
Z" two sides. Now it matters not what an
us ones opinion of the value Of expert tc-
timony Is. Just here was where 1t cam
an. in. Counsel for the State, at the concl'
sion of their testimony. could not haT
no introduced experts when their cvidenC
by closed. because at that time there w
on no evidence tending TO show that Ski
To- ner was on the sidewalk at the time J
received the fatal shot. They could NJ
To- have framed a hypothetical question
he an expert witness before the facts Wei
10 before the court.
not The Judge said he certainly would III
"a have ruled out such a question.
not Mr.. Gillian said it would surely bay
-, been bad practice to admit it.
aid Judge feeple9 9dh II naIE -,
asked how far a man could walk az
or receiving such a wound as thus
- Mr.. Gillian contendcd that the cvlden'
N that Mr.. Skinner had taken a step or ~
forward as if to renew the attack at t!
ION time of the first shot, certainly called y
ilec some expert testimony.
Judge PEBBLES said he Gid not rememb
eSS ILL -...aonDn VI. Gillian said he