Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1923-10-23
MRS. |. H. COART
DEN|ESSTATEMENT
MADE BY HUSBAND

From the Atlanta residence, where
she now resides, Mrs. Rosa Mar
tin Coart on Saturday addressed d
communication to The Journal in
reply to the statement given out
by her husband, L. H. Coart, just
before he left Talbotton for the
state prison farm several days ago
to begin serving a life term for the
murder of A. 3. McNiece.
Mrs. Coart condemns the attempts
which she said had been made to
"villify her" in Coart's statement,
declaring the defendant attempted
to work up maudlin sympathy
in his behalf by endeavoring to be-
smirch the character of his wife" y
At the time of his trial. she as
serts, Coart did not dare call sin
gle witness against her character,
although the state challenged him
to do so and offered to reopen the
case for that purpose.
Text of Statement
The communication follows:
ION the 10th and 18th of October,
1928, there appeared in various news
papers throughout this state a sign
ed statement from l.. III. Coart.
which purports to have been pre-
pared by him and furnished to the
press upon the eve of his departure
to the penitentiary of Georgia where
he has gone to begin upon his lift
sentence for the murder Of A. b.
McNiece, he having been convicted
of the crime of murder in the SUI
perior court of Talbot county at the
March term, 1922, Of the court. He
committed the murder in October.
1921.
Criminal cases should be tried
by the courts and be disposed of by
the properly constituted authorities
of the state government, but as l..
H. Coart has seen proper to make
a lengthy statement, and as the
press has published the statement
widely, it is not amiss for me at
this time to. make this statement.
Under the laws Of Georgia, where
a husband is on trial for murder,
the wife is not permitted to testify
in the case and [, therefore, was
not a witness in the case. did not
attend the trial Of l.. H. Coart for
purpose of influencing the jury or
the court and made no public state
ment touching the matter until after
the jury had retired to consider
their verdict. 1 then stated through
the press that L had never been in
the presence of A. 3. McNiece eX-
cept when his wife was present or
when L. H. Coart was present, or
when one or more other persons
were present. I further stated that
A. 3. McNiece's conduct when in
my presence had been only that Of a
perfect gentleman. This statement
was true then and it is absolutely
true now.
Denies Statement
I'm L. II. Coart's statement above
referred to, he says: ..
ION the day of the shooting, aft
err going direct from our home to
the court house, and ministering ten
derby to McNiece for nearly two
hours, Mrs Coart came down to the
jail to see me for perhaps five min
utes, and asked me why had shot
him. 1 said. Rosa. you know why
I snot McNiece, just as well as l
do. l went there this morning to
tell him he had to stay away from
you and my home as long as re-
main here. He tainted, abused and
threatened me until it was beyond
human endurance to bear Almost
her first remorseful remark was ON,
Lee, why didn't you shoot me in
stead, for 1 was responsible for 1t
all"
"All of this statement is false
VIII produce one witness Who Will
swear anything derogatory to the
character of the wife of L. IL. Coart,
or Mrs. A. B. McNiece, I will give
the defendant verdict of not
guilty.
1.-The solicitor further said: You
may put Jim Jordan on the stand
and [ will waive the right to con-
clude the argument on behalf OF the
state and I will waive the fact that
what Jim Jordan claims to know is
hearsay evidence
1.-THE defendant and his counsel
sat dumb.
"Coart had put up a vile, coward
~ bluff His bluff was called and he
was condemned. He was then COM
PEELED, after this challenge on the
part of the state, to rely solely upon
his statement and the attacks which
his counsel might make in their ar
guments to the jury.
Refers TO Opinion
"As a matter of fact, he had not
a witness who could have truthfully
sworn facts material to the issue in
, the case. / am justified in saying
this for the following reason:
1.-The second sentence Of division
two in the opinion of the supreme
court. in the case of l.. FL. Coart VS..
the State, which decision was rem
dered late in September, 1928. is as
follows: The statement Of the de-
PENDANT would of itself have author
lied a verdict of guilty
Where a criminal makes a state
ment in the trial of his case, which
is substantially plea of guilty. it
is useless to talk about witnesses.
when the statement of the de-
PENDANT was read in the press
throughout the state, at the time it
was made, many able and disinter-
ested lawyers said that it was a plea
Of guilty
"In view of the statement quoted
from the opinion Of the supreme
court, l.. H. Coart will not be heard
to say that he did not have a fair,
Just and impartial trial. He was
not tried before he had time to pre-
pare his case. for he murdered Nc