The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1905-12-15
HISTORY OF The
REAvES KILLING
Continued from first rage.

Continued from first rage.
families should continue to tire at each
other as usual.
Witness said that Joe Trimble and
Colum bus Mckee both advised hi to
do as he had always done, but that
John Rountree said he didn t know
whether he ought to go there to work
or not Witness stated that 1t was
ahout week after the burial and three
or four days after the suspicious
against him became known to him
that he went to Work at the Reaves
home. Witness had worked with
Reaves and Mcknight on the house once
before the killing, but for only snort
time.
o Did anyone hear the converse
ton between you ana Reaves when the
contract was made tor. you to work
there?
A.-No sir.
@ Had you told anyone of the con-
tract before you spoke of 1t at the In
quest?
Al had not.
O.-When you told Mrs. Reaves of
the agreement you had mace wltn MI.
Reaves 10 do the work. was 1t before
OF aILGT you bOIO ACl Va pbO A~A@SN
against you both?
Att was on Monday or Tuesday
afterwards. Mr.. Webb was present
and Mrs Reaves told me to come on.
q Did YOU not know that it would
increase the slanderous Calk for you to
20 to the Reaves home to do the work?
A Il did not.
@ In conversation with MIS-
Reaves while you worked there, did
Won not know that it would increase
the sIanderous talk against you?
A.-No sir, | did not. / thought
the matter was settled by the coroner's
Jury, and did not imagine that anyone
would think or say anything OF my
working there or talking to MIS-.
Reaves
Witness did not remember the incl
dent relate1 by Wash Warren, when
the latter went to the Reaves house
after a blade. If he was in the house
with Mrs Reaves. he did not remem-
Der it. Witness heard the testi mony
Of Alb Spark man and young Hutchln-
son IN regard to the smile at the grave,
out again denied positively that he
smiled at Mrs. Reaves and stated
again that if Mis-. Reaves smiled at
him he did not sec it. lie knew no
reason why Sparkman and Hutchinson
shoulu have so testified. Did not
remember how often he saw Mrs,
Reaves after he bau been accused OF
the crime and until he went there to
work. Stated that he did not contrib
ute anything to help nay the detec-
tive for his services. Denied that he
had conversation across the road with
Mrs. Reaves on the Sunday afternoon
during the last trial as testified to by
Ulysses SpaIkman. Witness was ques-
tioned at some length by Attorney
General Garner, concerning the o'pos
sum blood scheme, and denied any
knowledge OF it except what had been
told to him by other parties and heard
nothing of 1T until after it had been
arranged Was not present when the
ncheme was arranged, but heard OF 1t
Afterwards.
RE EXAMINED.
The State having finished its CROSS
examination, the defendant then went
90 his own counsel for re-examination
Questioned by Mr.. q. T Hughes the
matter 10 regard to the effort made by
Trimble, Kckee and John Rountree in
the defendants behalf was again taken,
and witness stated that in his affidavit
In the former trial, he stated therein
that certain statements were made and
sworn to on his own personal knowledge
and that other statements were made
on information which he had received
from other parties. AS to what the
three men had done in his behalf he
did not know what witnesses they had
seen. The purpose Of the affidavit was
to keep the men from going under the /
rule, that they might remain in the
court room ana assist the defendant in
the trial. These persons are near rela
tives and intimate friends of the de-
PENDANT, and he did not employ them,
but they did what they could for him
on their own accord; without pay and
without solicitation from the defendant, |
who accepted their aid on the sugges-
ton of his counsel.
Odd these men know OF any facts !
which you know OF which should have |
caused them to go under the rule?
A.-None that l know of.
Witness stated that he knew nothing
OF the opossom scheme except what was
told him. At this point the Court ruled |
that the opossom incident was excluded |
from the consideration of the jury un.
less the State could prove that the de.
PENDANT was party to the scheme.
Questioned as to the nature of his ILL |