The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-10-13
THE TENTH DAY OF
HAYWOOD TRIAL.
Continued from First Page.)

say the defendant was pleading with Mr.
Skinner. Did that struggling together
look like it? When Mr.. Skinner jumped
off some eight feet, did that look like he
was renewing the attack? Mr.. Simms
did not say so.
The State would stand By Bob Simms'
testimony. The defense have to rely on
that sweet-scented pair, that dandy dude
from Baltimore and Hocutt. There was
Schmitz talking in Southern Pines. Did
he tell the truth there. or did he tell It
here? Mr. Norris argued that he told
the truth when he was talking to Mr..
Peck, Mr.. Oslin and others at Southern
Pines. For there he talked unawares,
without any coaxing and he did the same
when he talked to Mr.. Thurston, of the
steamboat Alabama. To believe Schmltz
and Hocutt the jury would have to disbe
lieve Mr. Simms Would they do it?
There was Hocutt in Henderson, in Jim
Thompson's store, talking in the presence
of l. J. Young, saying Skinner was killed
in the street with his back toward Hay.
wood; that he had a Baltimore friend,
lawyer who would make a d-n good
witness for the SINNERS. if they would
put up money enough. Then he was in
Mr.. o. G. Kings drug store, saying he
saw nothing after the first shot, and did
not know which side he was going 10
testify for.
Was the prosecution right, then, in at
tacking the character of Mr.. Hocutt?
They had asked him if he had not been
divorced from his wife on the ground OF
abandonment and adultery, and that was
proper question, for divorce obtained
on those grounds showed that man dis,
regarded his solemn obligations, and laid
him liable to the criminal laws of North
Carolina.
AS for the little country boy, Mr.. Nor
ris agreed with Mr.. Pou and Colonel Har-
ris as TO the advantages of the country
boy over the city boy. But there We're
some bad boys raised in the country. Not
all were good boys. Their argument ap-
piled to the little Thomas boy, but the op
posite would apply to the Hocutt boy. If
they could prove the Thomas boy good
boy, the prosecution could prove the
Hocutt boy a bad boy. oh, consistency.
thou art indeed "a jewel. They could
prove the good character of Walker
Thomas, but it was filthy. sinking and
venomous in us to prove the bad character
of Hocutt 1t had been Mr. Norris ex-
perience that men very seldom descend
to the lowest depth of crime at a bound.
Here was Hocutt, the bad boy. Then We
see him in Raleigh jumping from pillar
to post, and In Southern Pines he meets
Mr.. Schmitz, two of kind. Birds of a
feather will flock together, and should go
down together. Look at the good men
of Raleigh who have sworn his charac-
acter was bad. DR.. Sorrell knew little of
him, had simply traded with him in town
N. B. Broughton said he knew his family
had not seen much of Hocutt since he
came to Raleigh But because he had
heard nothing against him up to this trial
he gave him a good character. The State
had brought reputable men from john
ston county to testify to Hocutts charac-
ter, even if Mr. Pou had spoken of that
Pulley crowd" He had not dared ask
jim Pulley any questions. Mr.. Winston
had explained his little trouble that Mr..
Pou asked about. Were not these men
telling the truth? So the testimony of
Schmitz and Hocutt falls to the ground.
Ned Barnes says his attention was at
tracted by the two men talking. Woods
had said he passed close by the men and
they were talking quietly together.
Barnes carriage was turned north and he
was looking that way. But he says he
saw Skinner strike Haywood, and jump
back six or seven feet with his right hand
to his hip pocket. No one else swears 20
that. Barnes is mistaken. What at
tracted him was the shot. Mr.. Pou's
theory that Skinner was reaching his right
hand back to loosen the pistol was
merely his imagination. There was no
evidence to support it. On the other
hand there is evidence that when the body
was picked up the pistol was easily re-
moved. Moreover it was absurd that any
man would turn to draw pistol with
that same side toward his enemy. Ac-
cording to Mr.. Simms the deceased was
nearly twenty feet away before he hesl-
tated. Was there any reasonable app1e-
hension there, when man had retreated
that distance?
Mack Fuller's expression was downward,
his demeanor was uncertain. His eyes
showed fear He said Mr.. Skinner struck
Mr. Haywood and backed Off If that were
true, the ball would have struck Mr. Skin
ner in the front of the chest. The Stale
had not asked about the statement OF
Mack Fuller to Mr.. Norris. That was
brought out on redirect examination by
Colonel Argo. Mack had told Mr.. Norris
that the defendant was standing on the
grass south of the postoffice building,
where the second iron post is now.
The speaker would not say anything
against little Walter Thomas, but the
jury must have felt as he did, Little
boy, you have seen too much,' more than
any of the other witnesses. 1t was not
reasonable that he on his wagon, would
notice those two men coming in oppos;t"
directions. Mr.. Daniel had cross-examined
that little boy, not to put him in a bad
light. but to show how easily he could be
led along to testify to what his questioner
is saying. Mr.. Holding had taken an
imaginary man suggested by Mr.. Daniel
as talking with Mr.. Skinner to be the oc
casion of Mr.. Skinner being standing
there waiting for Mr.. Haywood That lit
tie boys father told about what the boz
really saw He had told him he saw
man hit another and run off and the other
man shoot him he did not say word
to his father about the man putting his
left hand to his hip pocket. Mr.. Thomas
had said that Mr.. Rowan Rogers mad
come to see him about it. Now, it was IN
evidence that Mr. Schmitz was stopping
at Mr.. Rogers When Colonel Harris, IN
his argument spoke so feelingly about