The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1913-09-09
IN THE DAVIS CASE
Solicitor Herbert {. Morris n.
Reply to Statements Maze
Defines His Position.

Ndtciheht CoilCtAueu 10 your paper II
yesterday, referring to myself in th.
article carrying the head, PAM
Asked by Rev.R. L. Davis" and ot,,,
references made to me in CONNIE
heretofore published CONCERNING $40
trial of Rev. Mr.. Davis, which ten5e
create an impression concerning ~
official conduct in said case that
not warranted by the facts. ST
space in which to make the foUouia,
statement:
Prior to the court at which Mr.
Davis was tried. one of the counsel
mol. pros. the case, as he c~ontended
there vas a conspiracy formed on tina
part Of the States with esses against
hts client. I stated to counsel that n
he offered evidence at the heartnc
witch tended to establish hrs conten-
Q l would consent to 4 verdict 4
not guilty. When the case was tried
/ did not examine or cross-examin
witness offered by the State or the
defendAnt-permitting counsel reprv.
senting the prosecution to do go in
behalf Of the State. l pursued that
course in order to be in a position Ia
more readily determine il the defend
ants counsel made good his conten.
ton as to showing conspiracy. Coun-
sci for the defendant did not offer =
scintilla Of evidence showing conspir-
acy on the part Of States Witness.
nor did they prove the charaster II
any Of the States witnesses 70 b. bad
hence, with six witnesses testify ing
against and only one witness for de
PENDANT as to assault. l could not con
/ G0rf RI N-OrdIn n MOI "
close Of all evidence | stated il open
court to counsel for defendant that
would agree for the jury to pass upon
the evidence under His Honors
charge without argument. Counsel
for the defendant declined my propo-
sition. Could l have done more TO
show a Discrimination to press prose
cut1on? MY argument to the jury
was in the main a reply to the arCu-
ment advanced by counsel for de-
PENDANT, and which / think was fairly
made. | contended that the weight
Of the evidence was in favor Of ths
State and against the defendant. and
that the witnesses for the State, al
though not preachers, were entitled
to the same credit as other witnesses
Of good character. II my argument
tended to the conviction of the de-
fendant, his counsel are solely re-
spons1ble for it, for If they had ac-
cepted my proposition / would have
made no argument against him.
When counsel moved to set the YER
dict Of h jury aside. claiming that
they had discovered additional ey-
dence in behalf OF defendant, | stated
In open court that If they could pro-
duce any evidence that Would tend to
contradict witnesses for the State ~
would tend to support the evidence q
the defendant, | would consent for The
verdict to be set aside, n would
give them until Saturday, the last day
o. the term, in which to produce Tire
evidence. The case was left open by
His Honor. Counsel for defendant
failing to produce the alleged newly
discovered evidence, His Honor de-
clined their molten to set aside YER
dict. and entered judgment against
the defendant. His Honor. in deeiin
ing the motion Of counsel for defeno-
q did not state hat he believed the
defendant to be innocent, nor did ne
state that II he had been on the JDrS
ne would have rendered a verdict IT
not guilty, but he stated that if he had
been on he jury he probably wonid
have voted tor an acquHtal. That NJ
knew the high character Of the fathtf
or the defendant and also that or thv
descendant, n he knew them to h.
good people, but that the jury haFine
passed upon the evidence which Wa'
submitted to them, he did not fe~
warranted in saying hat the verdtN
was against the weight OF the "a
oence, and hence declined their mo
uon. COUNSEL for the defendant ga
hctlce Of appeal to the Supreme CpuTt
l consented for them to have the tim
requested in which to make up caS
on appeal, and afterwards eXtende'
I that time. On the 4th inst, one /"
) counsel for the defendant notified III
they had abandoned their case on a.
peal and would apply to the Govern
Tor a pardon. II counsel for defenG
: ant can now produce reliable test
: mony discovered since trial that v
3 Ken to contradict the witnesses +
the state, OF tend to show g coHspl
q acy on the part Of the witnesses IL
the state against the defendant. | "
cheerfully ask the Governor to pal
: don defendant; otherwise, they car
not reasonably expect me 10 ask IN
trOCaYnAr RI nxo~r;Io 49, NJ ~