The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-09-08
THE MURRAY CASE
Heard On Appeal Yester.
day. Court Has Fun
With Atty. General.

The sitting of the Supreme court
yesterday was consumed in the hear
ing of argument in the appeal of w.
r. Murray, convicted of manslaughter
for the killing of his kinsman, j. S
Murray, in Durham last November.
The undisputed evidence showed
that the deceased had stopped one
Markham, an employee of the defend
ant, and advanced upon him in a
threatening manner; that w. r. Muir
ray came up and pushed back the de-
ceased and a fight ensued between
them, during which the deceased fired
three times with a pistol that w. X.
Murray was unarmed, but grappled
with the deceased and that during the
struggle the pistol was discharged
and j. S. Murray received a wound
which proved fatal.
The variance between the testimony
Of the State and that of the defense
was that the State held that the de-
PENDANT was the aggreSsor in the fight;
that he disarmed his opponent and
then in the flush of anger fired the
fatal shot. While the defense claimed
that w. r. Murray was acting in the
first instance as a peacemaker but that
deceased stepped back and commenced
firing; that defendant then closed in
and in the attempt to disarm his OPP
ponent the pistol was discharged
without malice or intention on his
part.
Applied to these facts and cOnten-
tons the legal argument in the Su-
preme Court yesterday hinged upon
whether there was error in the ruling
Of Judge PEBBLES that the evidence of
the defendant was entirely negative
testimony, while that of the State was
positive.
In UNFOLDING the verdict the Attor-
ney General r. d. Gilmer, took the
position that the evidence showed that
the defendant had sought a difficulty.
and that, therefore being engaged in an
unlawful act, he was responsible for
the results growing out of the difficulty
in which he engaged, it making no
difference whether he was armed or
not, or whether the pistol was dis
charged by him Intentionally or as the
result of a struggle for the possession
Of the weapon.
During the argument the court room
was enlivened by questions asked bS
members Of the bench of the Attorney
General.
Suppose the deceased shot himself
while trying TO shoot the defendant?"
asked one of the justices.
The Attorney General side-stepped
cleverly and proceeded to cite cases
in support of his position.
But the court persisted. The Judges
eyes twinkled while they piled the
States officer with similar questions.
Finally, however, Judge Conner
rang the bell:
do you mean to say" he asked,
that if one man should attempt to as
sault another who turned and ran and
in running stumped his toe and fell,
and in falling broke his neck, that the
original aggressor would be guilty OF
manslaughter?
The five judges of the court regard
ed the Attorney General like SO many
sepulchres of humour. The counsel tor
the defendant smiled like the Cat in
Alice and the Attorney General gaZed
reproachfully at the court. Finally.
he too smiled a resigned and chastely
sardonic grin. But there was weari-
ness in his voice:
81 should say that he killed himself
rather than face DEATH" he surren-
dered.
The case for the appellant was ar
gued by ex-Judge Winston and j. S.
Manning, Esq, of Durham.