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

WOulu
convict Mr.. Haywood. Then ne had told
Mr.. Thurston the story later on of how
he had changed his mind, and was going
now to testify for Mr.. Haywood The
lawyers for the defense had shown him
charts of the wound, etc, and he had been
persuaded that his eyes had beiied him.
And Mr.. Hocutt had been proud Of his
Baltimore lawyer friend who could be
good witness for the SINNERS, if they
would PIT up enough money. What had
made poor Charlie Hocutt change his
mind. Hocutt and Schmitz were birds of
a feather. Both were fond of shooting
off their mouths There seemed to be
the idea of money running through poor
Hocutt's brain. He had been the first to
suggest it.
AS to the testimony of Ned Barnes, Il
that be accepted as true there were three
carriages in the street in front of the post
office and Schmitz and Hocutt could not
have seen Haywood up near the parapet
by tie south steps of the postoffice.
Moreover, not one of the witnesses said
they saw wagon or mule running away.
Then, it effects the testimony of Mrs. BIZ
| lngs and her daughter, for if those three
|
seen Mr. Skinner where they said they
saw him, only one step off the curb stone.
If the jury believed the testimony of Mrs.
Billings, then the testimony of Ned Barnes
and Mack Fuller falls to the ground.
The mere infiiction of "a blow will not
justify return, except lin kind. Even
when a blow is struck, if the stricken man
take any unfair advantage, it is murder.
If the defendant seek out the other, after
preparing deadly weapon, then it is muir
der, even though deceased had assaulted
defendant. If a person be assaulted with
violence or with circumstances of lndlg-
nifty, and he slay the aggressor, it is man
slaughter. Necessity distinguishes be-
tween manslaughter and eXcusable homi-
eide.
Mr.. Woodland feelingly urged the jury,
when the appeals should come for mercy
to tell the defendant that they would
show him the same mercy he had shown.
He had made a widow and orphans: he
had taken from an aged father his last
hope, a father wiling patiently to go forth
from his days of toll to his final reward,
a father who was d minister OF the Cos
pei and a law-abiding man.
Capt Day asked who Mr.. Woodland was
talking about.
! Judge PEBBLES said there was no evil
dence as to who the deceased mans father
was, whether he was a poor man or a
rich man. or what kind of man he was.
Then Mr. Woodland closed with final
appeal to the jury to act according to the
dictates of their conscience.
| 1t was now five o'clock Mr.. Woodland
bod
hours and half.
COL. HARRIS SPEECH.
Then ColoHel Harris addressed the jury
for the defense. He began by saying that
the defendant was not pleading for mercy.
He was asking for verdict of not guilty
on the ancient ground of selfdefense ana
self-preservaton. He had brought evil
dence to demonstrate that he took the
| life of Ludlow Skinner to keep his own
from being taken. He asked which his
torical character was the more to be adj
| mired. the great War Secretary Seward,
who insisted upon the death penalty should
always be melted out to deserters from
the Union army in the Civil War, or the
President. who, hearkening to the appeals
of the mothers of deserters would grant
kpardons to these men? But this defend
ant was not appealing for mercy. He
asked for the verdict of not guilty be
| cause of the law and the facts in this
case.
There was no doubt that Mr.. Haywood
regrets this occurrence as much or moro
than any living man, and yet that great
principle of self preservation compelled
him to do the very thing he had done.
There was not a particle of testimony
To cbou flto4 M II,
ner were seeking each other. No reason
had been brought out to show why MI
Haywood was carrying a weapon, except
that he expected to leave for Florida
very soon. Accordingly there was no ey
dence that Mr. Haywood was expecting
any trouble.
If Mr. Simms' evidence tended, as Mr.
Woodland said, to corroborate their theory
why did they attack his evidence? Why
did they not put him on the stand for
the State? But they cross-exa mined him
with the intent to impeach his testimony,
and questioned Mr.. Briggs for the purpose
of contradicting Mr.. Simms evidence
The defendant after the cross-examina
ton of Mr. Schmitz at the habeas corpus
proceedings, felt that he ought to pro-
duce witnesses to testify to the character
of Mr.. Schmitz in Baltimore, where he
was born and reared and now lives Now
the State tells the jury that the deposit
ton of the Governor of Maryland did not
amount to much. But one of those de-
positions had stated that this position of
Notary Public in Baltimore, for which
Schmitz was applying to the Governor,
was very important one there, and one
for which there were great many appli-
cants among the lawyers of Baltimore
Colonel Harris then went on to take up
others of the dispositions taken in Balti.
more, to show that they were of very
considerable weight. If these deposition
were of no account, and if the testimony
of these men from Southern Pines and
Mr.. Thurston should invalidate that evi-
dence, of what use would it be for any
man to establish good character? And
when the counsel for the State had ran
sacked Baltimore for men to testify against
Mr.. Schmitz and got them here, then for
some reason they failed to put them on
the stand, although they were here in
the city. 1t was quite likely that those
gentlemen at Southern Pines had mis-
understood Mr.. Schmitz, or did not hear
all ba said for Mr. Ccbp,i+z bad enid biu