The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-10-09

Johnston county, said Hocutt's character
was bad up to- fifteen years ago.
Mr.. Pou brought out that Mr.. Pulley s
son was arrested by Mr.. Hocutt on
| charge of counterfeiting.
j. E. Winston. of O'Neal's township,
Johnston county, gave Hocutt bad rep
utation up to IA years ago.
Mr. Pou brought out that witness wife
had had him up in court for mistreat-
ment, harsh language. Witness said It
was all due to lies and the jealousy of
his wife
Capt. w. N, Smelling, of Raleigh, said
Hocutts general reputation was bad.
Col. Harris brought out that he and
Hocutt were members of the Central M
E. church.
R. E. Prince, of Raleigh Knew Hocutt,
and his reputation was bad.
Cross-examined by Capt Day, witness
said his character was bad for dishonesty,
not paying his debts. He owed him be-
tween so cents and $1.00.
A. A. Wood, of Raleigh. Knew Ho-
cults reputation to be not very good.
w. j. Moore, of Raleigh also gave He
cult bad reputation.
In response to Capt. Day, witness saiG
ter's worth of meat. but never expected
to get the money, and had never charged
him with it.
JUDGE VS.. COUNSEL AGAIN.
Then Mr.. Norris requested that the
jury be retired.
Mr.. Norris then said that it was on
Tuesday that Judge PEBBLES had expressed
his Interpretation, of the method of ak
aiming the witnesses for defense. Now
counsel for the State had in court the
witnesses to prove the truth of those
charges mentioned against Mr. Hocutt and
Mr.. 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
that he could not see how counsel for
the State could have any doubt of the
fact that there had been a struggle and
blow struck, and on that account he
dio not consider that anything should be
gone into simply with the object of hum;l
iating the witnesses who said there had
been a fight and blow struck
Mr.. Gillian replied that there was evil
dence that two of the main witnesses
for the defense had told different stories
of the affair, saying that there had been
no fight, although they testified that there
had been. Now. if these witnesses had
lied about this, any other facts that might
be brought QUITO show the bad character
of these witnesses were perfectly proper,
and that it was besides the duty of the
attorneys to bring it out.
Mr. Woodland said that, while he did not
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.
Judge PEBBLES said he certinly had not
intended to humilate anyone, but was
only endeavoring to protect a witness.
He had TOO high regard for counsel to
think of doing anything of this kind.
Some of them were his bosom friends.
Still, he was not responsible for what
the newspapers might say. If the papers
had not treated them right, they should
call the newspapers to account.
Then the jury was called in, and i'm
mediately sent out again. in order that
the matter of introducing expert medical
testimony might be discussed.
EXPERT TESTIMONY QUESTION.
Mr.. Gillian said the question now was
whether these gentlemen who had been
summoned as experts should be allowed
to testify in yebuttal of evidence offered
by the defense. He knew His Honor had
expressed the opinion that this should
have been brought out at first as direct
evidence. But His Honor must, in his
experience, be aware of the laxity of the
rules on this matter. This was in its
real essence rebuttal testimony. The evil
dence had shown that it was a material
question where deceased was standing
when the fatal shot was received. Also
material, but somewhat secondary to that,
was the question which shot had been the
fatal one. The evidence, at the time the
State closed it's evidence, was that the
fatal shot had been received when do
ceased was about midway from the curb
to the car track. Mr.. Jones Fuller's tes-
timony had made that very clear. His
testimony negatives the idea that he
was injured by the first shot, while it
indicates that it was the second shot that
struck him, as shown by the actions OF
Mr.. Skinner at the time the second shot
was fired. All the evidence OF the State
was to the effect that it was the second
shot that killed and the State appreciated
the fact that it was necessary to prove
that the second was the fatal shot. 1T
cannot be that the State was expected
to anticipate the defense. How could it
anticipate that the defense was going to
try to show that the first shot was the
fatal one, fired when Skinner was within
few feet of defendant.
That in effect is the contention of tie
two sides. Now it matters not what any
ones opinion of the value of expert tes-
tinony is. Just here was where 1t came
in. Counsel for the State. at the conclu-