St. Tammany farmer. [volume] (Covington, La.) 1874-current, 1912-03-23

VI the 0e1ense over q cetrain docu.
ment which Attorney Jones held in
his hand. The discussion became
heated and the court ordered both
gentlemen to be seated. Mr.. Jones
took his seat, whereupon the district
attorney sprang upon him and wrest-
ed the paper from his hand. The
sheriff and deputy interferred and
prevented further violence. Mr..
Perrin was then committed by the
court to Jail for twenty-four hours
for contempt. The trial of the case
was continued until Monday morning
The Attorney-general has been re-
quested to come here and represent
the State in the prosecution of this
case. The trial of the case will be
resumed Monday, everything being
favorable"
CAUSE OF THE CLASH.
H. Golden was the witness on the
stand yesterday when the trouble
arose. Counsel for the defense made
objection to a line of questioning,
and at the suggestion of the district
attorney he was given his testimony
at the coroner's inquest to read over.
S. H. Holstein of the counsel for the
defense came in to the court room
at this juncture and objected to the
agreement which had been reached.
Mr.. Jones then took the paper from
the witness, it is said. The district
attorney then asked the court to have
the paper returned to the witness.
This was refused. The district at
torney then asked Mr.. Jones for the
paper, he says, and when the request
was refused, took it forcibly.
Residents of Jena requested the
Governor to have the judge Reused
from further sitting in the case or
have the Attorney-general take
charge of the prosecution.
District Attorney Perrin represent
ed his district in the State Senate for
several terms, living then at Harri-
sonburg. He was superintendent of
education of Catahoula parish, and
was appointed district attorney of the
new district February l.
Judge Wear lives at Columbia, in
Caldwell parish. He was in the low
er house of the Legislature for some
time.
LONG STATEMENT.
While in Jail Saturday District At
torney Perrin issued the following
statement:
1.-THE most serious case that I
found upon the docket when l en-
tered the Office was that of Elvin
Mizell and Ben Terry, charged by the
grand Jury of this parish with the
murder Of S. O. Hindman. These
parties were in Jail without the bene-
fit of bond and it became my duty
to try their cases at once. When
the court convened, l set their cases
down for trial and they made no OBJ
lection. / elected to go to trial with
Mizell first, which ! had a right to
do. His case was fixed for Tuesday,
and on that day the trial began.
II began the selection of the jury,
but had not proceeded very far when
l was interferred with by his honor
the Judge, who informed me that I
was too rigid in my examination of
the jurors. I had not at that time
nor do now desire to infringe upon
any mans rights, but the case before
me for trial was one in which cir
cumstantial evidence had to be re-
lied upon as the sole means OF con-
viction, and in the cases of that kind
the examination of the jury is nee
essarily more rigid than in other
cases.
SAYS. HE SOUGHT HARMONY.
II had been in the habit of having
counsel for the defense object to my
method of examination when it be-
came illegal, and reserve bills of ex-
ception if overruled, and the action
Of the judge, whose son had the OPP
posing side, took me very much by
surprise.
II modified my examination in
order to have harmony, and after be-
ing overruled repeatedly and con-
stantly censured by the court in the
presence of the jury and then threat
ened with fines and jail and all man
'ner of dire calamities, finally sue
ceeded in securing jury of good
men, whom l am willing to trust
with the case and abide by the ver-
dict, even though that verdict be
unanimously against me.
Il then proceeded with the trial.
or tried to proceed. soon found
that the witnesses need not answer
questions unless they desired to do
so. The court repeatedly ruled that
a witness who was not In any way
connected with the prosecution could
not be made to testify. This was the
most important and material witness
of the State. He had sworn before
the coroner's jury and the grand jury
and l had his sworn evidence before
me, and was only asking him to re-
peat what he had already sworn to.
had the evidence before me, and 1t
did not in any way connect him with
the case.
"The court decided that he could
not be made to swear. This was a
new and unusual doctrine of law to
me, and one with which l did not
agree. 1t amounted to saying that
a witness did not have to testify il
he did not SO desire, and It's effect
will be that hereafter there can be
no conviction for crime unless the
witnesses desire to swear. I dis
agreed with the court then and dc
now. l submit the proposition to a
candid and unbiased public, asking
that the public consult any unbiased
lawyer as to who was right.
Another witness was called to tes-
tify, and he was an accomplice. He
too, was instructed by the court that
he did not have to testify. l have
seen no law to that effect, and am
ignorant Of the existence of any Law
that an accomplice does not have te
testify when called upon to do SO il
his answer does not incriminate him
The court did not require the witness
/ to answer any question.
JUSTICE OUTRAGED"
II saw the State FRUSTRATED, the
evidence suppressed, justice outrag
/ cd Tho law 0f thu Land Yi0lafG.d anf