The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-10-20
Not Guilty, the Jury's
Verdict,
CONTINUED flom Page Two

$500, tGat N-AOAA4 Dt 5OQE btE44tk-lOr
guilty. Ii you find him guilty OF man
slaughter, your verdict should be not
guilty Of murder but guilty OF man
slaughter. If you should find him guilty
OF murder IN the second degree. you
should say not guilty OF murder in tie
fist degree but guilty Of murder in the
second degree.
Is there anything have left out that
either side desires ne to call the atten-
ton OF the jury to?
Take the case. gentlemen, and con-
slder II, and say how you find the de-
fendant.'
The charge had occupied ~ffty-hve min
utes, and the jury retired at halfpast
twelve.
COL. ARGO CONTINUES.
Yesterday morning at nine O'Clock
when court met for the last day OF the
Haywood trial, Colonel Argo continued
to speak Of the failure of the State il
lis duty to the defendant, to the law
and to the jury. They had even failed
to put in evidence the clothes Of the dead
man. 1t was Unprecedented in the eX-
p%erlence of the speaker. The conclusio /
OF the jury must be that it showed a
great weakness in the case. Otherwise
they would ave brought forward every
bit CT evidence that could be secured.
The prosecuting attorneys had been
bold enough to say they had no apologies
to make for appearing on that side, and
tEat they considered it their duty to en-
gage IN this prosecution. Duty TO whom?
They are not sworn officers of the Law.
They are simple lawyers. To say that
out Of the forty lawyers in Raleigh only
two could be found to prosecute this case
was an lmputatlon upon the lawyers of
Raleigh. Or else it must be that they
exercised their right of discriminating il
favor OF innocence. What was that duty
to come here to Wake county to admin
lister justice? Their duty was merely to
their private retainers, the private prose
cutors who had employed them.
The only question arising from the eyl.
dence in this case is whether MI. Hay
wood is guilty of any offense. even thA
lowest included in this bill of indict-
ment. Mr.. Daniel had sad he had not
heard a complete statement Of the case.
He would proceed to give It to MIN. Oh
the 21st day of last February one of the
citizens of this town went to the county
court house in response to a request from
the Clerk of the Court. His business
finished, he left, s~aluting his friends IS
usual. AS he reached the southern steps
OF the post office on his way to his office,
he was met and accosted by another cit!-
zen OF the town. They engaged in con
/ versatlOn that was gentle, according &c
MI. Woods. In a second he is struck by
a blow on the cheek SO powerful as to
fell him to the ground. When he lifts
his head he sees his opponent-a larger
and younger man, 8 or 10 feet away, his
eyes blazing with wrath and his mouth
set in what looked like a deadly determi-
nation, with his hand on his hip pocket,
apparently waiting for his adversary to
rise sufficiently for his body to present
itself before him. Mr.. Haywood knew
the young mans mother had been buried
the day before, and under these unnaturaI
conditions the defendant must have
thought the situation a desperate one,
and that his life was IN imminent danger
1t was an abnormal state of affairs, fol
a brave, af~fectionate, tender man to take
such a step as this. M. Haywood die
not mlsjudge. There was danger. Mr.
Haywood saved himself by instant action
He drew and fired. His adversary jump
ed away to the curbing under the sting
Of the ball, his muscle paralyzed and hi.
hand still in his pocket. as Mr.. Norris
and Mr.. Strong admitted. Mr.. Haywood
seeing himself still in danger, fired again
and then lowered his weapon.
It was not only a mans privilege, but
his duty to protect his life. The jury
must put themselves in Mr.. Haywood
position, with all the surrounding cir
c~umstances and conditions. Was it no
reasonable to suppose that death or grea
bodily harm was intended by Mr.. Skin
liner. The defendant is simply required
to satisfy the jury that he was in appre-
hension. He need not prove it beyond
a possible doubt.
Did the evidence prove that this ac
count of the affair was correct? Nj
Gilliam's recollection of the evidence wa!
w~oefully defective. Mr.. Daniel had msdt
the fairest presentation on their side
but he had used the evidence with tn,
skill of a trained lawyer, and had put
wrong construction on some of it, an,
omitted the most vital part. IN the frs
} place, there was not the slightest evl
dcnce Of any provocation on the part o
2 Mr.. Haywood. Mr.. Woodland, in Quotinl
Miss Pace, had used the word "remon
strate" to describe Haywood's attitude
j but demonstrate does not admit of an.
: provocative method Of speech. Mr.. Gil
liam had said that Mr.. simms saw tner
struggling together. but Mr.. simm
I qualified that. Mack Fuller said that Skin
ner took the lapel of Haywood's over
: coat and struck him. Would not Hay
wood struggle if the other man Shout
: assault him in this way? Mr.. Woodar
had said that Skinner had struck him !
contempt and walked off. Treated hi.
! Ike a dog. But that was wild %conjura
; ton. 1t was theorizing. We must dea
with hard facts. Mr.. Strong had had
| cyclone theory. There was not one b
c CT evidence of any difference between tt
e men, as Mr.. Gillian had il
c timated. What Mr.. Ludlow Skinner
motive was, it is unnecessary to inquire
$ his action shows the presence OF a mOtlv
: When Mr.. Gillian says there was a d
ference between the men, he admits tina
IS Skinner had a grudge against Haywood
What that grudge was W. don't know
G The prosecuting attorneys, associate
II with SINNERS nearest relatives, kno
what that grudge was. Why did they nc
It tell us?
l.. There was not a single witness on tn
part OF the State who saw the bcglnnin
Of the controversy. Only w Wltnesso
lc saw the first shot, George Wilson an
u Jones Fuller.