The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1904-02-14
COURT HELD THAT CASE
HAD NO MIDDLE GROUND
Next Step of the Defense VIII Probably
BE to Institute Habeas Corpus
neutrality-suspicious. Arnu-
ments Were Made.


grand jury of Jefferson county on the
charge of murder in the first degree.
This was the result of the preliminary
hearing which commenced last Tuesday
afternoon. The decision was rendered at
8 80 o'clock last night. The defendant
was Immediately carried back to the
county jail where he has been since jan
uary 20.
Shugart is charged with shooting A.
j. Banholzer in the Metropolitan bar.
room. The tragedy occurred on the night
of January 20. shugart was arrested i'm
mediately after the shooting and was car
ried to the city jail A few hours later he
was carried to the county jail on q war
rant sworn out before Judge Alternately.
Banholzer died at the Hillman hospital
eleven days after being shot.
All of the witnesses at the preliminary
hearing agreed that Banholzer was an
innocent bystander In the arguments
yesterday afternoon 1t was developed
that the defendant, Shugart, was drunk
at the time of The homicide, and was
therefore not, responsible.
Features of Testimony.
There have been hundreds of prelimi-
nary trials in lower courts in Jefferson
county. There was probably never sim
liar one to the hearing that hsa just come
to an end. During the course of the pre-
liminary there were two difficulties be-
tween attorneys. In the first difficulty
the solicitor of the county and one of the
attorneys for the defense came to blows
and each was fined $40 for contempt of
court Yesterday afternoon the solicitor
was accused of making false statement
in his argument by one of the Witnesses
This witness is now under arrest for con-
tempt Of court and will be tried tornor-
row morning.
Every motion during the preliminary
by either side was resisted. Eacn DAY
the courtroom was crowded.
shugart was reared in JEFFERSON county
and has been practicing law for about
two years. He is a graduate of the law
school of the University Of Alabama, Is
a member of the law firm of Shugart &
Bell His father, John T. Shugart and MS
Mother, s. C. shugart are attorneys.
The Counsel.
The defense was represented during tho
preliminary hearing by Attorneys B. NJ.
Allen Hugh Morrow, Robert N. Bell,
John 7. Shugart and s. C. Shugart, while
Attorneys John C. Forney, brother-in-
law of the deceased, Jesse F. Stallings.
Solicitor Harrington F. Hefin and Assis-
tant Solicitor e. W. Winston conducted
the prosecution.
The grand jury meets in April. I'm
less the defense Institutes a habeas cor
pus proceedings, and bail Is allowed at
this hearing, the defendant will have to
remain In jail at least two months longer.
After Judge Abernathy's decision was am
nounced last night, scores of friends OF
the defendant crowded around him to
shake his hand. Before the decision was
announced he appeared to be confident
that bail would be allowed him.
Probably one hundred people were pres
ent last night in the little courtroom in
the Allen building when the decision OF
Judge Alternately was announced. In rem
dering his decision he said:
Found No Middle Ground.
when court adjourned this afternoon
said that 1 would investigate the law with
regard to the malicious killing of another
by drunken man. am now satisfied as
to the law on that point. In this case l dc
not think there is any middle ground. II
Is a case of either binding the defendant
over without ball or releasing him.
therefore bind him over to the grand jury
without BAIL"
c. C. Rhame was the last witness called
He was introduced by the state in re-
buttal when court was called to order
yesterday morning. He testified:
"I have lived in Birmingham for four
years. Am printer by trade. Have
known Willis Brewer, Jr.. since January
rs. He was in Leslie's printing office that
morning. Was employed that morning
as a printer. l asked him where he came
from, and he said he had just come here
from Montgomery. On. February LIST we
discussed the killing Of Banholzer. He did
not tell me that he had seen the shooting.
He told me that evening that he was 60
ing to the county Jail and see Shugart.
On Wednesday following he told me that
he had been to see the defendant and that
he was the same man he was In a class
with at the University of Alabama. He
protested ignorance Of the shooting
On the cross-examination the witness
testified that he did not know the defend
ant nor the deceased. He said that he
had no interest in the case. He said there
was no personal interest involved.
Lawyer staIIIngs.
This ended the testimony, and the argu-
ments in the case were Immediately en-
tered into. Attorney stallings for the
prosecution opening for that side. In
beginning his argument the lawyer stated
that he felt deep sympathy for the de-
PENDANT, for his father and for his
brother. He thought the ease should be
discussed without prejudice; said the
state did not hold any prejudice, but on
the other hand sympathized.
He said: There can be no doubt but
what an offense has been committed. I
apprehend the defense is that Shugart
did not do the shooting. If that is true
he is entitled to go free. But on the other
hand, IL it is not true. and IL 1t was muir
der In the first degree, there can be no