The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1906-04-17
The argument l. Warm

4 1IE5a EflE court
The Argument l. Warm
Colonel Hinsdaie began the arzu-
ment ~ claiming that through three
OF the States witnesses had been at
tackled yet the contention " the State
remain u~n1rokea. me attack on
Thomas ne said was unjust a no1
bearing on the case. and lis testimony
T. not essential. The i~nsiruation That
he did the burning amounted to moth
ing IS NJ motive was shown. Both
sides agreed that the burning was in
tcendiary. and the defense SAID Thorn
-. the State thdt Il MS Norris. As
70 the questioned the light ia the
Lhouee tne.e mus have been one as
| there Was 4 fire afterwards. Tic SPOKE
ii the boy with alleged stolen watch.
which Mas found IT = Ho"'i -pile. and
by the fact that the boy was retained
tho employ Of NJ. Wombl colonel
Hindsdafe said he was not q thief. He
aNerreG that the defendant coun>c!
had agreed that the boy : statements
were true. Street. the driver. had
reiterated his original statements ANA
the defense mad introduced lie testI-.
rnony. Witness Upchutch vas the
| third in line Of review aad the con
sistency Of his declarations with the
other two was emphasized, and the
Whole augmented ty the words of
Mrs. Womble. He reviewed the testi-
mony referring to the granting to Mr..
/ Norris Of the thirty-day vacancy per
nit for the house the DAY before the
fire, to his visit to the house at night
fall when he was within a teH miles
Of it two or three times during the
day. 10 the charge Of his spending III
teen minut behind the house with q
vaIise. 4 singular coincidence, ne de-
clared. was mat for nineteen DAYS with
no tenant. there was no TIRE, bat Inc
night that Norris was there the fire
occurred. Coming from behind tn.
house he has the boy to drive fast
and gets AVA before the ire. thus,
/ think, showing THAI there was 2
slow match there to start the fire.
Colonel Itinsdale declared Mr.. Norris
anxiety 10 get TO Monntile TO gel
nome 10 sick chi!d and u the insur-
ance that he hdG learned Of
the lire lay : postal card Wee &t"fie5,
aad again. his statement that re Wa
at the house 4 day bcfor" the fire,
not q ha3f hour before II. 10 tne
| sheriff he tells thai the nous was
worth $500, and this Colonel Hins-
dale said was another deceit. Gtceit
from beginning to III And after the
FIRE in Moncure We find Norris clpSetei
with the boy who was with him, talk
ing his written testimony 50 that
Wnen he went on the stand he could
clinch him with it. That shows =
guilty. conscience. In closing Colonel
Hinsdale insisted there was plenty OF
evidence on which to bind over.
Holding for the Defense.
Mir. j. N. Holding first spoke for
the defense. He declared Col. Hins-
dale had m~isstated the law to the
court with regard to the necessary
proof to bind over to court, this Col.
Hinsdale arising to deny. Mr.. Hold
ing declared that there was no proof,
and that the causes said to be sus-
picious if these We're multiplied by
five, would amount to absolutely noth-
ing, pointing out discrepancies in the
testimony Of the negro boy who
drove the team, in the testimony of
Thomas, and in the character of
Thomas and Upchurch proved by wit
nesses to be 50 very bad
that there was enough shown to
disprove them. He cited cases which
he declared showed more suspicious
circumstances, which the court had
refused to allow to go to the jury
He said that it was impudent to say
that Norris would have tried to fix
Robert Street in a signed statement,
when Norris would only be with him
in the presence of Mr.. Womble, and
it might as We'll be said the State
with its detectives was trying to fix
Witnesses No fair minded man who
had read the evidence could see any
probable cause to bind over, and a
prominent visiting lawyer had said
To-Day NIl1G i'll cOulI tldl III 1oti l
should bind Yer on testimony k
that shown by the character and teSti-
mony of Thomas. He asked that Nor
riS be discharged.
Harris Declares Testimony Rotten.
Col. j. c. L. Harris spoke next for
the defense, declaring first that no
motive had been shown to n
Norris with the fire. AS to the evi-
dence Of Thomas the State evidently
relied on it. but it looked as if
Thomas himself had fired the house,
and he had proved such a liar and
his conduct and testimony We're such
that no fair minded man who heard
him but knew that he was the man
who set fire to the house. The case
Woul never have arisen but for
ThomaS' testimony and in his CONVEX
sation on the road With West he-ha6,
declared that he was mad at Norris
aud had not been treated right. He
had come back and denied the state
ment Of Miss Strong and the report
of the S~tenOgrdpher. There was moth
ing in the> matter of the time of get
ting the vacancy permit, but that if
Norris had known Thomas vas going to
pass his house he would have stayed
there that night. He compared Mr..
Norris and his years here with that
knotty-headed feloniOus ~nigger's''
testimony and said it was monstrous
to ask that it be believed, and that
no belief should be accorded Thomas,
or Upchurch, proved to be men of
low and vile character. The who's
case against Norris was rotten and q
dog ought not to be bound over on
such testimony, that he did not be-
lieve the court Would bind Mr.. Norris
over.
Ryan Says Lying Testimony.
Major S. G.. Ryan declared that the
State had said that the testimony of
Thomas and Upchurch need not be
considered. AS to the negro boy, his
testimony showed no evidence of Mr..
Norris having burnt the house, and
SO also as to Mrs. Emily Womack's
testimony. Leaving out the Thomas
and Upchurch lying testimony there
was nothing left. Hhe affidavit of
Miss Vivian Strong as to Thomas con-
v%ersation with the Messrs. Norris
showed Thomas to be q low, vile, per-
jured william, and Upchurch with a
/ character so black that not ever The