The Roswell daily record. [volume] (Roswell, N.M.) 1903-current, 1909-07-27

they have all been in court. Then also
not one of these negroes would state
| the conversation before the killing.
No confidence was to be placed I'm
their testimony, said Mr.. Clancy. In
contrast TO the testimony Of the ne
groes and of the Mexicans. Is the tes-
tinony of the witnesses of the prose
cution. Rogers. Vos Freeland and Rob
inson. All of it is to the same effect.
Here Mr.. Clancy went over the tes-
ltimony of these witnesses and show
ed how, he considered 1t fitted togeth-
er.
Then Mr.. Clancy brought before the
jury the testimony of Mr.. Phillips. He
had. he said. crossed the street and
met Wells. who said to him. "Bill. |
could not help it. was not able to
fight him." This showed, said Mr..
Clancy. that Wells was not afraid of
being cut to pieces by knives. but had
not wanted to fight Shirley. Wells is
able to do a first class bit of fighting.
and the speaker spoke of the powerful
build and quick movements of the de-
fendant. and inquired how long Shir-
ley would have lasted before the de-
fendant. All of this. ne said. was mere
ly an excuse to murder Shirley.
Upon full consideration of this case,
asked Mr.. Clancy, are you not COM
PEELED to feel that much OF the evid-
ence has been set up since. Even II
the evidence of Wells be correct. was
he not guilty of an undoubted unlaw-
ful killing of Shirley.
Then Mr. CIancy asserted that the
large number of Witnesses produced
by the defense, and much of whose
testimony was not to the points of the
case. were intended to confuse the Ju-
ry. He then went over the list of wit
nesses giving a short abstract of the
testimony of each.
The matter of the knife was then
gone into shortly by MIR. Clancy and
he considered that the knife pro-
duced in court, was the one used by
Shirley.
EIdridge for the Defense.
Attorney Eldridge for the defense
next argued the case before the jury.
He asserted that the Territory had a
lbandoned the testimony of its own
witnesses and sought to convict upon
the evidence of the defense. He would
first consider the testimony of Rogers.
Vos and Freeland.
He said that Rogers testified that
Wells made an assault upon Shirley at
the time of the killing. II the testi-
mony of Rogers be true. then the evil
tience given by Freeland, Robinson,
Vos, Freeland, the negroes and the
Mexicans was untrue. Rogers was a.
lone in his version of the case.
Rogers stated that there were no
threats made to the negroes. Ii this
was true, then the other witnesses
testified falsely.
Can you believe anything that the
witness Rogers said IL he stands alone
against adj the others?
Rogers said Freeland and Shirley
never went to the north just before
the killing. All this points to the fact,
asserted Mr.. Eldridge. that j. c. Gil
bert forgot to drill his witness on this
point.
II you cannot believe Rogers in a
murder trial with defendant fighting
for his life. on the three points stat
ed. can you believe any of his testi-
mony? His testimony was venomous
and vicious considering that 1t was Civ
tn lO away q -Aidn . htC-
The speaker then took up the testi-
mony of Robinson. This man said that
Shirley and Freeland did not go away
and did not threaten the negroes. Be
| fore the coroner's jury he did not
| know what Wells said, but In this
trial he did. You gentlemen saw him
twist and squirm.
| Henry Vos also said Freeland and
| Shirley did not go away. There was
nothing abusive to the negroes. HIS
testimony is contrasiicted by that OF
Millice, Gill. Wilson, all the negroes
and the Mexicans. 1t is no good.
Take away all this testimony and
there is nothing left.
| When Wells was surrounded on the
sidewalk had he no right to defend
himself? Must he wait no 1be cut to
pieces before he acted?
Then consider the testimony of Eu
banks as to lead" When a man states
that lead will he there, in this western
| country he means II.
All the defendant could do was then
to stand and be killed?
| When Wells was ON the witness
stand he was honest and open He had
a right to protect himself and he fel;
this and knew IL, and acted as such
man would. He went TO trial at ths
FIRST term of court. He did not ask fo1
a change of venue. but wanted TO bs
tried at once by the people among
whom he lived and knew him for the