The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1908-09-04

line. he said this testimony ought
nor to be admitted for ang purpose.
II this evidence was admitted for an
invalida5ing process merely. tn jury
would be liable 10 confuse il with the
main issue. No jury could separate
and isolate these questions and 1t
would be 70 throw down the bars.
Mr. Hughes argued the effect q
this character Of evidence on the
mind of the jury.
The court went over the argument
of counsel and the facts Of the case
at length and reversed his previous
ruling and held that evidence Of this
character was immaterial and incom-
petent. However. Acknowledgement
Garner was given permission to re-
open the question and make an addi-
tional argument. Judge Anderson re
Elied to Mr. Garner.
The argument lasted for an hour
and a half at the conclusion of which
the Court again went over the ques-
tions argued. The Court said that
this evidence is immaterial and could
not be presented. The jury then re-
turned.
Witness was asked if she ever saw
defendants wife looking lovingly or
affectionately at her son, and she said
she never saw anything of the kind;
that she Mrs. Cranberry was in too
much trouble and distress for any
thing of that kind. Asked as to the
treatment and relationship of the de-
ceased and the defendant while they
were living in her house, witness said
their relationship was most friendly
and their treatment Of each other very
cordial That they would sit on the
porch and laugh and talk and smoke
together; that they would go to the
card table and defendant would show
her son tricks at cards. That defen-
dant had borrowed her sons pistol
and did not return it for several weeks
after he had deserted his wife. Asked
as to where the defendant would
spend his evenings when he came
home on Saturdays, witness said that
after he had his supper and got
through fussing with his wife he
would leave home and she would hear
him coming in early in the morning;
one or two or three O'Clock.
Mrs. CRANBERRY, witness said, re-
NAMED at her house from January
the 31st, the day of the separation,
until the oath day of March. That
on the 18th of February her two half
sisters, age four and six years, and
their old mammie nurse, came to live
with her. That a small bed was put
in her room for the two little girls to
sleep in, and that when either of them
were sick the old nurse would also
sleep in the room.
Asked concerning the provision de-
PENDANT made for his wife, in the way
of Clothes witness said he made none
at ALL That she paid the nurse with
old clothes and money sent her by her
father, and paid for her washing the
same way. That her husband gave
her absolutely nothing Witness said
that when defendants wife came to
her house to board that she had only
two skirts; one very much worn one,
and the other one friend here in
Columbia had given her as Christ
mas gift. That she had no shoes, but
wasw caring summer slippers. ut
was then midwifery She was so
absolutely lacking in underwear, that
she had to borrow, and did borrow,
said the witness, from my sister-in-
law, Mrs. Henry Long. She was wear
ing an old summer hat, and low cut
summer shoes or slippers, and old,
worn, thin, summer clothes, both her
self and child, and he did not give
her a thing while she was there.
There were other facts this witness
WOulQ nave JCoJlHSu w. OuI thO |
tense objected, and under the rule
that no statements made by wife, {
except in the presence of husband,
can be used against him, the Court
refused to allow her to answer, and
she was allowed to stand aside with :
out cross-examination. ]
Dick Williams.
testified that he saw the defendant
and the deceased both pass his store !
on the afternoon Of the day of the
CRANBERRY walking about ten
feet ahead Of Long. That he did not
think that CRANBERRY saw Long.
Arch Craig a
said that some two months before the a
killing CRANBERRY came to his resi- \
dence and asked him what people