The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1905-12-08

=
tile evidence to be sought by the state
from ia, Sc witnesses of the defendant
might he discussed before iue HOLor.
The jury was sent 20 their quarters at
the new Jail.
Attorney General Garner stated to
the Cour that at the To- mer trial it was
shown that these three men, Jno. Roun-
tree, Joe Lrimole and q McKnee had
busted tht mselves to secure evidence for
the defendant and it Was the desire of
the State to prove by these witnesses
and others that they mad, previous TO
the former trial and sinco that trial
been sne paid agents of the defendant;
that they had harassed witnesses and
closed tue mouths of witnesses for the
State and that tht y had secured an opos
sum, saturated a garment IN It's blood
and attempted to send it to DR.. Leroy,
the States expert witness,for thv purpose
OF trapping or deceivmg him That if
this evidence could be produced the
jury ought 10 know it.
MIR. Hatcher, for the defendant, ar
gued that it was perfectly legitimate for
defendant friends and near relatives
to seek out and secure knowledge of the
evidence that would be brought against
the Defendant, and also to secure the
testimony for his defense, while be was
lying ia I'll and could not do it him self.
Thai Tie fort made IN the opossum In
cldent to test DR.. Leroy was only a test
to zee the extent of his skill
Mir hughes, for the defense, also argued
that he securing of knowledge of the
testimony by deieedant's near relatives
and friends was perfectly right and that
If they had over-stepped that right and
resorted to uni awful acts in an fort 70
suppress evidence of value to either the
defendant or the State, that they only
could be held responsible, aud that
their acts should not and could not have
anything to do with the guilt or lnno
cence of the accused; and what they
hau done, if they had committed such
acts as the State desired to prove, should
not go before the jury as evidence
against the defendant.
The Court sustained the objection of
Counsel for the defense to the intro
duction of the Testimony.
SATURDAY MORNING.
Notwithstanding the rain, the mud
and the cod, the crowd was there and
listened to everything that was said.
Very nearly all of the witnesses intro
duced Saturday evening we're new, and
consequently their testimony was listen
ed to with great interest. The first
witness called was
Mr.. SEWELL MCKNIGHT,
Brother of Boyd Mcknight. Was
raised in Williamson county. Lived
near the scene of the killing Went to
the Reaves home the next morning.
Stayed till about 3 o clock. Saw Lee
Rountree there, and had conversation
with him relative to the murder.
Please state what was said in that
conversation, Mr.. Mcknight
A.-Lee said: Cousin Sewell, they
are talking of sending for the blood
hounds. | don't think that would do
any good, the track has been run over
by so many; then the dogs might come
to any of us who have been handling
the body, either Boyd or myself or Ell
mer, or the negro.
Q.-What reply did you make, Mr..
Mcknight?
Al told him good man had been
murdered, and an effort should be made
to find the murderer. That the dogs
might strike the trail leading off on
some of the fences. he turned to walk
away then, but in leaving said, WE'LL let
them bring the dogs, but the man who
committed that murder has it covered
up.
CROSS EXAMINED,
by Mr.. Hatcher, witness stated that he
did not testify Oh the last trial. Told
these facts to Joe Mcknight day after
the killing, and had since told them to
several parties. Had asked Mcknight
before the meeting of the coroner's jury
why Rountree opposed bringing the
dogs.
RE- DIRECT EXAMINATION
by Mr.. Figuers, witness said that Roun-
tree was dressed that morning in suit
of blue overalls. That he left afterwards
and returned dressed in another suit,
grey coat and dark pair OF pants
with small stripes running down the
legs.
Q.-Wss your attention called to his
change in clothing?
A Yes: be remarked that as other
people we're dressed up, he thought he
would dress up, too.
Q Were the other men present
dressed up?
A.-No, they had on their working
clothes.
CROSS EXAMINED,
Witness stated that be only remembered
the kind of clothes worn by two mem
bers of the Coroner 8 Jury. He remem-
bered how Lee Rountree and Emerson
Tucker were dressed.
Re.examined by Mr.. VOORHEES,, witness
SAID Ronntree called wibnesses atten-
tor TO his owe dress and SAID he had
dressed up because otkers were dressed
up" Very soon after that the witness
heard that Rountree was accused of the
murder
WALTER HUTCHINSON,
a son of l.. {. Hutchinson. was the
next witness called. Now lives On the
Lockridge farm, five or six mics from
Rountrees home, but lived rear defend
ant two years. Remembers the killing
ot Reaves, and was present at the Lurial.
Saw Rountree at the burial, and also
Mrs. Reaves. During the burial witness
"a M Mrc RaavaS aittinu in fine surrey |