The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1905-03-24

jury. convection. Yes, / say that
OEly once bsfore-fouIteen years ago,
have appeared fol the prosecution;
and if l did not believe with my whole
heart that the hand of ". Lee Roun-
tree cut rue throat of John Reaves. all
the money my client ever saw, could
not induce me to appear against him
He said that defendant could not
clIim the bright character winch ms
counsel had pointed fol him: that ne
hal violated and broken at least tour
command ments. First. HonoI tiny
father and thy mother, that thy days
may be long in the land Ihat he
had broken this commandment because
he had confessed to a crime and SIN
which had dIshonoIed his father ana
mother. That he had broken the COM
mandmeut Thou shall do no muir
DER" also the commandment Thou
shall not cummit adultery. and finally
the commandment. Thou shalt not
coyet thy neighbours wife. -
Mr.. Hughes. MI. VOORHEES, said. had
spent half hour attacking the sheriff
of the county for doing his duty. and
that he had insinuated that he. ire
feTrlng to himself had done wrong in
going to the house of ROur tree with
the sheriff; and he said that if an at
tempt to clear up the mystery of his
friends murder and of tr7iDg to see
that justice was done, was wrong or a
crime. he thanked God he was a Grim
inaL IF your client is innocent. why
not face the issues of fact? Why by
the use of beautiful language and
much weeping, attempt to draw the
jury away from the facts In the case.
Why not argue tie facts as they are,
The speaker here touched upon the
tact that if the hIee-triumvir-(r re-
ferring to the three witnesses excluded
fIom the Iule)) and said if they had
made as great an effort to clear up
mystery MS they had to veil or deepen
IT, that they would have known long
ago who killed John Reaves.
Mr.. VOORHEES, then took up the un.
contradicted facts and presented them
to the jury. He said that IN his
opinion there were enough uncontra-
dicted facts to make out case, and
to fasten the murder on Lee Rountree,
who he stated. was the last man seen
with the deceased, the last man to see
his, Reaves wife, and the first man to
see her after the murder. That she
was the first person he went to after
he was accused of the crime. Why so
many secret meetings, so much to be
said between them where no one could
hear? He went over the fact that
Rountree went over to Mis-. Reaves' a
few hours DetoIe they went to the
lodge, when Mr.. Reeves was away. To
whom did the proof point. save Roun-
tree? What motive could anyone else
have? 'Reaves had not an enemy IN
the world; put, gentlemen of the jury,
Reaves had good looking wife, of
whom he WAS very jealous, and the
defendant had an improper and
illicit intimacy with that wife. and
every good woman every good man is
interested In your verdict. whether a
man car go into neighboT s home,
ruin and seduce his wife, disgrace his
family, then kill him to get him out
of the way.
The law does not seek vengeance,
only Justice; it il not vengeance the
State asks at your hands, only pIotec
ton fol- your wife. your daughter.
The lawyer who preceded him, MI.
VOORHEES, said, had sought TO draw at
tention away from the facts but If you
find the defendant innocent, you brand
all the States witnesses as the biggest
pack OF liars ever brought before any