The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-02-07
Butler County. so like a Greek tenn
Mrs. BuclxhnIts Again.

There remained today, m additional ordeal for the widow Of Bradford Buck halts. She was again called to the stand to testify and this time she was to deny evidence given by her half. sister and the full sister of Dan Stall ings. This sister was Mrs. Ella Owens, and she was the last witness put upon the stand by the defense. She was told to tell of a conversation, she said she had had with. her haIf-sister, Mrs. Bradford Buckhaltsf fw1 weeks before the tragedy. Mrs Buehllalts, the wit ness said, had told her, Bradford says he is tired of the way Dan has been running over him. and that If 1t had not been for my sake, he would not have stood it. He said if Dan ever crossed him again something was go- ing to happen.'
 Mrs Buckhalts followed her half sister to the stand. She denied firm ly that she had even said such thing. She remembered that the occasion Of which her half-sister spoke of but she was quite positive that she had never said any such thing.
 Throughout the morning, In the last stage of the evidence giving state and defense undertook to tear down and build up at the same time. The evil deuce the state had erected, the de- l fense sought to tear down; that which the defense had put up, the state at. tackled. Reputtal ana cross reoua.a, ;t sal | over the jury was left to find its way out of a tangled labyrinth.
 At the beginning of the morning ses- sion, the defense had but one witness 1 to introduce, Mrs. Ella Owen, sister Of Dan stallings. and halt sister or Mrs Mamie Buckhaits. With her testi- mony, ex-Congressman Stallings an- nounced that the case of the defence had been filled and completed.
 The State thereupon -egan It's rebut- tal work. its work of tearing down the defense, which had been so carefully built up. First called to the stand was Mrs. Radford BuckhaIts to deny the statement made by her half sister on the stand. and this she fully did. Evidence of Dukes.
 Next called was J. M. Dukes. who told of being with RAdford Bnckhalts throughout the greater part of the af- ternoon. And his account differed ma terially with that which had been sub mitted by Joe Coker. Moreover, Mir. Dukes testified that Mr. Cooker was not with Buckhalts as he had testified on tho stand.
 sam Jordan and B. J. Dawson sum- moned by the State. contradicted the showing made by Joe Carroll, the ab- sent witness, who said he was on the west side of the underpass and saw the first two shots fired by Radford Buck halts. The two rebuttal witnesses. however, testified differently. They were on the west side of the underpass and they caught the runaway mule. But they said Joe Coker was nowhere about. Nor could they tell that the man in the buggy fired the first two shots.
 Ralph Bryan and Earnest Bryan. on the stand, denied that Ralph Bryan had eyer told Jack Powell tbat he bad not seen any part Of the jury
 Wilkefson Nicholson contributed vital testimony for the State. He was an eyewitness of the shooting. having been standing just previous to the shooting on the sidewalk talking to Judge Lampley and Dan Stallings. He heard the cursing from the street and he saw Dan Stallings start out into the street.
 "As he stepped off the side walk, his coat flew back on the right side like this" said the witness, although I could not see whether he had his hand on his pistol. I could not hear dis tinctIy what the two men said. but saw Radford Buckhalts reach for his pistol. It being in his pocket and his hand slipped. For the second time he tugged at the pistol and while he was doing 1t I stepped in the bar. At that instant I heard the first pistol shot of the duel"
 Movements of staIIlnEs.
 J. w. Angus testified that shortly af- ter the killing Elam Williams told him of the movements of Dan Stallings, just previous to the shooting. This account differed from the one given by MT. Williams on the stand and agreed with the account of Ociie Buckhalts and other witnesses for the State. The witness said Elam Williams had told him: Radford Buckhalts Is dead and I can't do anything for him. may help Dan Stallfngs and I will do what I can for him.
 I. s. Pate, summoned to the stand told of a conversation he had with Joe Coker, on the day following the shoot ing. At that time CoKer told him that he was inside of Ramsay Wright's store when the shooting began. Ram say Wright proprietor of the store in which the shooting began, swore that Joe Coker was in the store when the first shot was fired. The witness had been waiting upon him. The witness had just wrapped up bundle and handed 1t to Coker when the first shot rang out.
 Two ladies, Mrs Jasper Jones and Mrs. Claudio Whittle were next on the witness stand to give robuttal testi- mony. It was to tho home of Mrs. Whittle. the sister of Radford Buck halts. that his dead body was brought when the three bullets had done their fatal work. Both ladies testified that Mir. Coker came to the Whittle home | about the time the body was brought | in. They asked him why. how did 1t | happen that the two men shot each oth- CT, and that he replied:
 "I do not know. I was in Ramsay | Wright's store and I didn't see any | thing of the shooting"
 In rebuttal, Oscar Martin, q young l man was called. He was called to rebut the testimony of Norman Gaf- l ford, who had told of It. saying he | had been an eye witness. The wit ness declared that shortly after the | tragedy. Gafford had told him in the | office of the ice company that he was | in the store of Ramsay Wright when | the shooting occurred.
 With this the State closed its rebuttal | evidence.
 RebuttaI for Defense.
 In its inning for rebuttal, the defense | called Joe Coker Mir COker denied | that he had made the remark quoted by ] MT. Pate. Tom Coker. who was pres ent at the time the alleged remark | was made, denied that his brother made | such a remark as had been quoted. The | defense wanted to prove by MT. COker ] that he had directly after the shooting | told his younger brother not to say | anything about the shooting until he | was a witness in court but the State l successfully objected to the question.
 Here all evidence was closed. MT. | StallinRs. for the defense wanted no ! time limit put upon the lawyers mak- ing arguments before the Jury in so important a case. The Judge, however. decided that three hours of argument would be sufficient for each side.