The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1906-06-29

ilization, by seeking redress in the
courts.
! This settlement was not by the wish
of this defendant He was opposed TO
it all along, but was prevailed upon
by his father, his friends and his coun-
sell And we find that one of the con-
ditions imposed by fowler to the pay
ment of the money was the return
of those letters and the copies which
had been made of them. He wanted
the woman, and he could not marry
her with those letters in Matthers
Gordon's possession, and I'll give him
credit for one thing, he did marry her.
Now lets read this divorce bill. We
find that every charge contained in it
took place after that personal en-
counter at the Bethel. The complain
ant thought of all the charges she
could bring against her husband in
order to obtain this divorce. Does she
charge him with unkindness? Does
she charge that he failed to provide?
Does she charge him with unfaithful-
ness while they were still living to-
gether? No. He seems to have been
an average husband to say the least,
I'D till Will fowler entered his home.
After that his father tells you his life
was changed, his hopes were wrecked,
he went down hill. You will notice
too that the applicant for divorce does
not ask for the custody of the child
She is satisfied to leave her little girl
in the keeping of it's grandparents.
Mr.. VOORHEES, has asked you in tones
of distress why the husband, if he felt
that he was wronged, did not bring the
divorce proceedings. Mr.. VOORHEES, is
too good a lawyer not to know that
he could not have secured one if he
had asked. He had no positive proof
in the first place of infidelity on his
wifes part, and he admits to you that
after the separation, he himself was
A man must come before the
court with clean hands. But who was
interested in securing this divorce?
Will fowler, and he was the person
who really had it filed.
The speaker then reviewed the tes-
timony of MAIDEN Voss, of Mr. Shune-
man and of Monte Fariss and said the
facts brought out by these witnesses
showed there was at least an under
standing between the wife of the de-
PENDANT and w. J. fowler, and that
their actions were peculiar to say the
least. 1t has been proven they had
many meeting before the divorce was
granted. What was the purpose of
them. You will find that Will fowler
went into the home as a friend and
took advantage of that friendship
Take all these facts into consideration,
gentlemen and read the subsequent
events in the light of them, and then
you will understand things better.
And now we find that from April, the
time of the compromise till the night
of the difficulty in September these
two men met and passed on the
streets repeatedly. They both lived
in the same town and their ways often
crossed. fowler had done all this de-
PENDANT wanted him to do; he had adj
mitted every charge brought against
him by the payment of that money.
This defendant was satisfied, but how
about fowler? He had reasons for
wishing this defendant out of theway.
We come to the night of the shooting.
1t opens with the defendant in a sa-
loon, but do we find the prosecutor
much better employed? He tells you
he was playing cards, and while
never playel game of cards in my
life, it seems 10 ne if card playing is |
wrong in one place it is wrong in the |
other. So let's measure one man by |
another, and we find from the facts |
produced that c-e man is just about |
as god morally as the other What |
was the defendant doing that night?
Was he contemplating murder? We |
find from the edidence he was prepar-
ing to go with some friends and prac- !
tice over some songs He walks out
On the front steps of the, Bethel and
fowler was the only man to see him:
anything wrong so far? You say yes,
ne had a pistol, yet he had no more PTS