The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1906-07-24
State Rests--Defense Intro
duces 10 Evidence.

IN TIE 'r.tl - Jr = <a--z -.
#h"u- burning <~>tsraas ae s.t4ea..
- tH' state aa@ sauelaI Hta 49, +.
ANS a. sted ~ 4n-roei4N. Us rst8.a
tHi fs cas- nuR t.& srru-t
%a.h SIDE being allow six hours
IND s4H" N.e EtEe uuk# raar
- Jnera NoWatk g"t the defense ana
al I : ~IEuII far Tie state
- ia" ontAul sa 20 the states esl-
Genee 81 MSS -u--s ted f> a.4a4 II.
ne court that thete was ast sufficient
%tlGcuse L. - - Ia" jars but Ju.fse
Neob concluded IL les ~. arEuuent
/ proceed
The of J4dEe WomarA
Nae addressed eAi.fl5 to thc suaU
bcueht - be derived IS 81 Nogrts
rom turning the h"use. u q discus
sion - ne danger OF efstulast4ut#al
evidence IN general ana - al attack
uIon the chain gf testimony u..aI
| winch lie state Is relying Iic 4t-
Ciaitd tllat Street. the negro. had ben
drilled ana that >Irs. Namaek Nas
al afflicted woman ui weak mind II
commented upon tile contradictions
horde hN tine testimony III these tAa
~"I.-eee. ana BROADLY 0n tAy faitur
OF anything like positive proof %.
rulit q the establishment OF = mo
Mr.. Spruil made an lmpassIonea
speech. pointed t. the su .icious cir
cuiustanoes connected NTH the t4re
ana Indignantly defending Commits
sioner Young from the criticism 10
winch he has been subjected Tor
bringing the prosecution. declaring
mat the jury would de- well If they
followed their oaths with the same
eafnestncss IL conscientious care 10
thelr duty as had been shown 10y the
commissioner With respect To that
imposed on him b. law. lie stated
that had Norris been an ignorant ne
Gio the jury would have convicted
MN leaving the box.
As had been predicted by the de-
tense. J. j.. Thomas was not put on
the stand BY the state. although h.,
Was the main reliance Of thu prusecu-
tlon at the preliminary hearing Mel
ther were the Upchurches put on the
stand. although thy were in the house
with Mrs. Emily Womack ana al
thoush her testimony in several partic-
ulars contradicts itself.
Thomas. had he beer put on the
stand. would have been subjected y
a terrific cross-examination and in all
probability tlatly contradictod in i'm
p"rtant particulars by Nj. Vivienne
Strong, who was in the court house
ready To testify for the defense.
Mr.. Holding. at the conclusion of
the TESTIMONY. attempted to obtain a
ruling from the judge that the bill II
Indictment was in evidence before tire
jury for the purposc of gaining an
opportunity to III upon the fact
that Thomas appeared before that
body in the preliminary examination
TO the sending of the bill. He will
undoubtedly make things hot on the
lhomaS question on the argument If
he is not prevented from doing 50 by
the court.
There was considerable wranglinE
among attorneys, but not as much as
on the second day of the trial. The
name Of Thomas was still tn tails
man for disCord.
Morning Session.
WITNESSES We're introduced as fol-
lows
j. u. Newer was examined as to
certain distances and locations m2rked
on the map introduced by Nj. Scott on
Wednesday.
He WAS subjected to a searching eX-
animation. as to his reasons for hay
ing told Mr.. Norris that q Mr.. Marks
was at our at PittSboro when Mr..
Norris asked him whether the latter
at home. His previous testimony
was read to him and. explaining Ger
tain omissions therein Of matter to
which he had testified concerning the
man Marks at the present trial. wit
ness stated that those questions We're
not asked him at that time. and that
he was not Cross-eXamined. Asked as
to the mental condition Of Mrs. WON.
ttNhs " itII,eN tHh"t1' ti'AN ~ lIti4
heard that she was not of sound mind;
had never heard that she refused 20
sleep on a bed and h\d thrown Il
bedStead which her son a given her
out Of her house.
Mr.. Jones: ""There'S not a word of
truth in that
Mr.. Holding: Its true.'
Mr.. SpruiIl, who had made objeC-
ton to the questions, I'm not testi-
flying"
Questions as to whether Mrs. Won-
ack friends or relatives had not
stated that she was of unsound mind
were ruled out.
h witness denied having had fire.
quent conferences With Messrs. Banks
and Scott. He was asked whether or no,
he knew of his own knowledge that
j. J.. Thomas had been before the
grand jury. The state objected and
there enSued a row somewhat similar
to those that characterized the
Wednesdays session but not so pro-
longed. Thomas name was again a
firecracker whenever it was mentioned.
The question was ruled out and the
cross-eXamination proceeded. the wit
ness denying that he a ever been
around with Scot or Banks, had mo-
talked with witnesses except casually.
had never written any letter to the in
Surance or the commissioned
of insurance. It was finally dragged
out of him that before there q been
any Investigation he had written TO
w. s. Primrose. because the latter Wa8
an insurance adjuster. With this state
ment of Mr.. McIver's is probably fixed
the inception Of the whole matter. He
had not talked with Thomas and had
not gone to see street. If the latter
said that he had talked with him
about the fire. he lied and that was I'll
there was to 1t.
Witness named a number of neigh
bors who had talked about the case Il
the fall. explaining the fact that he
had visited them by saying that he
was engaged in the lumber business
and that his occupation took him
about the county. He stated the
next moment that he started the lum-
Der business in April. whereas the Wis
its were made in November and De
He was somewhat confused
at the discrepancy but insisted that he
had no interest III the case.
WHY did YOU go?" asked Mr.. Hole
ing. Il don't know replied the Wit
ness. Nr. Holding: You wore not
1naIrS.~ 20 ,-,y,-r 4J-p4a - " ttng@@+