The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-10-13

a woman convicted of the murder by pofs
oning of her husband.
Capt. Day objected and the Judge sus
tanned the objection
The speaker did not mean to decry a
sense of mercy. That was divine grace.
But false sense of mercy could only end
in corrupting and overthrowing the law
and working it's uttermost ruin.
If there was occasion to invoke SYM
pathy for the living or the dead, he could
invoke it for the dead, but he scorned to
do So That province of exercising elem
ency was delegated only to His Honor and
His EXcellency, the Governor 1t is I'M
worthy of counsel, it is beyond the duty
of counsel to make appeals to the jury for
the exercise of that quality that lies in
the heart of every man.
Mr.. Gillian said he did not wish to dis
guise the fact that his connection with
this case was peculiarly painful and un-
pleasant. He could but lament and de-
plore such misfortunes of life as had re-
quired his presence here and that of the
jury But there rested upon him a duty
as urgent and strong as rested upon the
jury to discharge that duty fearlessly and
righteously He knew that not one of the
prosecuting counsel took any pleasure in
this occasion.
There had been much said by way of crit
cism of the way in which the prosecution
had been conducted. 1t had been attempt
ed to represent to this jury that the at
torneys for the State are bloodthirsty
seeking by unfair and illegitimate means
to accomplish the conviction of this de-
PENDANT. He felt it but sufficient to say
to this jury that it was unjust Did they
for minute think that this case would
not be prosecuted to the full extent of the
law? Did they think that because the dc
PENDANT was man of prominence and q
lawyer that he should not be prosecuted
as any other offender?
Mr.. Pou said he did not think that any
thing had been said that would Indicate
that they did not consider that MI Hay
wood should be tried just as anyone else
Judge PEBBLES said that he thought
counsel's remarks were proper in reply to
Mr. Pous criticisms.
Mr.. Gillian then went on to say that it
was very apparent that it had been the
deliberate, predetermined plan of the at
sci for the State, in order to compel them
to make reply and so divert the minds of
the jury from the real facts at issue.
They thought that in any controversy of
this kin1 the sympathies of the jury
would be with the local attorneys as
against foreign counsel So they had
gone on and made these attacks, accusing
counsel of conduct with which lawyers
do not usually accuse one another. And
it must be remembered that Mr.. POu had
been the first to ask a question along the
very line that they accuse us of adopting,
when he asked Mr.. Simpson about some
unfortunate woman that he was supposed
to have been connected with. They had
been compelled to drop that,
so far as Nh Simpson was concerned.
Then Mr.. Pou had followed
out the same course in the cases of
Mr.. Pulley and Mr.. Winston. And there
was no purpose in that except to hun.il-
late and harrass the witness. The speaker
submitted that the questions asked by
the counsel for the State had been sus-
tanned by the facts, and were fer def
mite purposes borne out by the facts.
Then they had criticised the State for
murder in the first degree. But the sOlici
tor had nothing TO do but follow out the
charge III the indictment of the grand
jury, and the speaker held that che grand
jury was justified in returning bill that
W ould bring out the most thorough inees-
tigation.
The State now insists that the defend
ant is guilty of murder in the second
4 - hn 10
PENDANT 10 show that he is not guilty of
that or a lesser offense. The State says
the shooting was done in malice, and with
would not justify the shooting There
must be an urgent necessity to take life
BIZ the appearance of drawing a deadly
weapon. Mr.. Skinner was q man Of
rcaceable nature Had he been otherwise,
ii was open to the defendant to show it.
That meeting was not of the volttlor of
the deceased, but it was accidental, and
deceased had a right to be where ne was.
What provoked Mr.. Skinner to strike tHat
blow? Is he accustomed to street broiis,
is he the man to go about seeking diff
Guilty? No living man can tell Us what
provoked that blow. He did not strike
Ernest Haywood without provGcaticn.
man. The harden is upon the defendant
to show this, to show the mitigation t
Is material, pregnant circumstance.
Mr.. Robert Simms had told the jury
distinctly, positively, without equivoca-
ton that the men were struggling That
indicates mutual willingness to engage
i'll difficulty. That is what drew forth
the blow. Ned Barnes, their witness, tes
titled that he heard angry words, and III
SANITY followed the blow.
The testimony Of Mr.. Fuller shows that
Mr.. Haywood was tapping Mr.. Skinner or
the chest, and that Miss Pace said they
were quarreling. That is as far as we
will ever get. They met. Something is
IN the background. Yes, there's a dark
cloud in the background. Mr.. Haywood
took his stand On the parapet in posi-
ton OF defense and defiance. He there
stood and by his movements almost struck
Mr.. Skinner as he tapped him on the
breast. That brought forth the blow,
Mr.. Gillian submitted further tfat
there was malice on the part of MIR Hay
wood toward Mr. Skinner. His getting up
on that parapct was an indication of it.
| r.. 4