The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1907-04-02

had no op%portunits to prepare their
case. L beiu stated in support ~ TIC
motion that IL ta the custom not
10 try case at the ttrn Of court ="
the Indictment EaS returned
Jones apHosed the motion on
the ground that the house VAS "a sore
spot in the communits and the citizens
IN the vicinity demanded relief IRON q
nuisance. II WAS chen Judge Jones
took this view ana ordered the trial to
that n trouble began.
Colonel Argo ~ once put his hand
in his pocket and. producing = bill. re-
his fee il tho presence 81 the
court and announced that he wound
withdraw from tn. Csc. Colonel - t"-
-is "UnmcdiateiE followed -uIe 1Hd the
ttgo lawyers left tho rGp:3
They were im~nadjatcln sent for by
TGd2- Jones W1ty .tat.i H5oiI tl',t- re
lJrn that the court must be treated
with respect that IL. bad the poWe-
to sec that this was done: and that
could either 30 ahead with the
case -" he would have 10 find
his remedy elsewhere. lie then
read the section Of the code
empowering Il Judge to require the con-
tinaancc III ! c;t~e IT lauycre who hac
once appeared and Colonel ;ilrris and
colonel Argo. bcin- M against IL, sat
down - earn their fees.
Evidence Of General Reputation
The direct testimony against the tWo
women was mca2rc IN Substance bur cr
tectivc untlcr the recent Long bill MAX
ing %g"ucral reputation comprtcat IN
-asos in this character.
Policemen Brooks. Branch. Thomp-
son and Pope were examined ana all
- them c>.cpt Thompson had seen
alcu and women enter tn" house 10Th
~ day aad night. officer Branch
iind heard two N"nh% men 10 I" The
ij"Isc and dcInaud tho return Of un"n"y
which thcy alleged taCv had paid for
roofDs. and officer RroOkS stated that
he had seen a man named Harper go
in the bouS" and lock the old woman
out. making threats against her n
afterwards ruE0in" from he house
and throwing hcr down with the de-
mand that she bring a certain woman
to the hous". Til" officer arrested
Harper for the disturbance" created.
Ex-NaIor \ NJ. Powell. r. &.
Powell. Charles J"nes. Hardin Peel
and others testified to the general
reputation Of the house
i:aidcd Poker Game.
IN the Lewis ease. the evidence was
practically the same as that brought
out at rhe trial Of tho defendant in
the police Justices Court. Officers
Beaslcy. Barrow ana Thompson tcsti-
fed to having made Il raid upon Lewis
room in the Henry building and sur
prising there a number OF young men
engaged in Il game Of draw poker
There a none in tho sum Of three
IoIlar4 and ode cents, Il pack OF cards
n poker chips. all of which were
scoupcd by the police. The only CYL
lence outside Of thai OF the one game
was that of 4 witness who testified 70
having seen other games played IN
The room and Of Il witness. Il clerk in
Whiting Brothers store. who was an-
nrnlnhpI nv hnIrpmtn ilSt-
aned IT the window in thc
rear Of the room. hearing voices M
what he took to be the rattle Of chips
n witness WaS careful to say
hat. while he knew how poker chips
ratified. he had never PLACED poker.
The Interesting part of he trial
,ainc at the conclusion of the evil
dcncc when Walter Watson. ESQ. of
ounsel for the defendant suggested
hat the plea ii bar WAS a civil en-
iuiry which must be first determined
irrespective Of the trial OF the main
seue o. fact. in case the plea was not
sustained. and that. unless the Court
himself sustained the plea. the defen-
iant Was entitled 10 have the Jury en-
.anntiel twice. CT to have Il separate
Jury % trN first tn" sutiiciency Of tie
rlea and then the facts uoon the eNi-
~nlCnca. Judge Jones stated that the
Practice was that the plea in bar
should be nut in simply as Il defense.
Mr.. Watson was well prepared. how
ever. II tinaliN convinced the Judge
hat he was right. The plea having
lecn made. and it appearing that the
offenSe charged MAS the same and the
evidence III the two trials Identical,
the Judge put the matter to the jury
who held thai Lewis could not be tried
again. having already been convicted.
Solicitor Jones tried to fight this
proposition on the q that the ole
was not good in view Of he fact that
the Dresentment had been made % the
grand jury prior TO the issue of 4 wa
rant and trial in the Police Court. but
again defendants counsel had cases
directly covering the point raised
III the trial before the Police JUS
ticC the defendant Lewis was incd