The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-02-01
Advertiser Bureau,
 Cair,ao Ian 91

] Almost the entire morning ana a l part oI the afternoon in the City Court i was taken up in the trial of the case against Osborne F. Childers, promi- nent merchant and citizen. residing eleven miles from this city. He was charged with assault with intent to murder one W. T. Honeysuck, also citizen of that section.
 The jury after mature deliberation | failed to reach a verdict and a mis- trial was declared. The jury stood ten in favor of conviction and two in favor of a $500 fine.
 Solicitor Thompson entered a vigor- ous prosecution against the merchant and concluded with the most earnest argument to the jury that he had been heard in since he was made solicitor The argument was short but emphatic. Childers was represented by two law yers and the testimony on direct and cross examination from several wit nesses was long drawn out. The SC was submitted to the jury this after. noon.
 1t appears that in September 1902, Childers assaulted Honeysuck severe ly injurlng him with an iron weight causing a feature of the skull Honey suck was in danger for a long time and it Is said the physicians were
 
 ter he sustained the wound. The State claims that the attack was malicious. but the defense made a strong case of self defense. The testimony of the witnesses was complicated and both sides challenged the truthfulness of many statements. The assault occur red in Childers's store and according to the evidence the dispute arose lover q load of cotton seed that Honeysuck bought at Childers's gin.
 Honeysuck told of how Childers struck him down and claimed that ne mad not precipltated a quarrel. He attributed Childers's anger to his hav- ing bought cotton seed that the defen- dant wanted to buy. He was follow ed by one Beardsley who told of hav- ing seen Childers strike Honeysuck and said Childers said afterwards that he did not intend to kill Honeysuck. Evidence produced by the defense in rebuttal- of that testimony was that Beardsley was asleep at the time of the trouble under a spreading chest nut tree not far distant from the store. The witness claimed that he hadn't been asleep and that from the dis tance he saw everything, although he didn't hear every word spoken. The State argued that the assault occur red twenty minutes after the time that the defense claimed that Beardsley was seen asleep.
 The next witness, Henry Nichols, who is like Beardsley, a brother-in-law of Honeysuck, said that he saw Nhe affair from the mill near the store and that he rushed to Honeysuck's side and helped him up. He declared that Childers did nothing toward assisting the stricken man while the defense claimed that Nichols was not near the scene and that he afterwards said that he had not seen or heard anything. Nicholas testimony in substance was the same as Beardsley's.
 Then came Sam Perry, a negro wit ness for the defense, whom Solicitor Thompson described as the "swfNest witness he had seen in a long time. Perry said that Childers had not abused Honeysuck or quarrelled with him and that when HoneysucK made a move toward Childers with his hand in his pocket as if to pull a weapon the latter struck him with a weight ly- ing near by.
 The defendant was on the stand sometime and told in detail of the oc- currence. He claimed that loaded pistol and shotgun were as near and handy to him as the weight with which he hit Honeysuck. He said he called A1ouSysuCh lO HIS sure TUT Ine puTpOSG of asking him about the purchase of the seed and with a view of buying them from Honeysuck. The latter, he said was intoxicated and abusive, hay. ing sworn at him and insulted him from the start. Mir. Childers said Honeysuck threatened him, and that when the latter reached his hand in his pocket where he had just put his knife | and started towards him, cursing, he | (Childers) struck him with the weight | in self-defense. Childers admitted that he had talked with several persons about the occurrence. asking them what they knew about 1t, but said he { was frustrated and nervous as any man would have been under the circum- l stances.
 At 11:30 o'clock Solicitor Thompson opened the argument for the prosecu- l tion, and he was followed by Messrs. Reese and Craig for the defense. The solicitor reminded the jury of the in- dictment found by the grand jury and especially urged that body not to con- slider that the defendant was a well-to- do merchant, a wealthy man and an influential man. If he was guilty of the assault, he should be punished the same as any pauper. white or black said MT. Thompson. The law and the court, he continued, made no dlscrim- ination and 1t was the jury's duty to infiict punishment or grant mercy as the case demanded. whatever the posi- tion of the defendant. There would be no use for juries and courts, declared