The Randolph Case: The Fourth day&#039;s proceeding-the conclusion

Title

The Randolph Case: The Fourth day's proceeding-the conclusion

Source Type

Newspaper

Publisher

The Weekly Advertiser

Publication Place

Montgomery, Alabama

Publication Date

05/12/1868

Transcript

- - - The Randolph Case. The Fourth Day''s Proccedings-The Conclusion. Yesterday morning, the Court in to hear the arguments of the Judge Advocate and Counsel, the testimony having been concluded.- The Judge Advocate was permitted to waive the opening and reserve the concluding argument. Arguments for the defense were read by Maj. Randall, by Maj. Pierce, and by Mr. Somerville, to which the Judge Advocate replied, and the case was with the Court. We have endeavored to give the evidence in this case in full, as nearly as possible, in the language of the witnesses, and with perfect impartiality. In this we have succeeded. We regret that we cannot also lay before the public the arguments upon which the case was submitted to the Court. The facts, however, are known to the world; substantially as they appear upon the records, and the arguments could scarcely present the unfortunate affair for which the prisoner was arraigned in a clearer light; but at the risk of. doing all parties injustice, we add a synopsis of the arguments as we remember the points made. Tlio counsel for the defense urged that there was no proof that Mr. Randolph had ever before seen or heard of Eddins, or of malice or an attack with intent to kill; that the pistol was fired solely for the purpose of dispersing a riotous assembly, into the wall above the leads of the crowd, and without any intention of hurting anyone; that the shot was not fired, and could not have been fired, at Eddins, as there were at the time. number of persons betweon Ran- dolph and Eddins; that Eddins, who was armied with a formidable bludgeon and a butcher knife, and was then beating Hollingsworth, turned upon landolph and assailed hint with his club, striking him twice; that then the accused, unarmed ex- cept with (a pocket knife, ent his assail- ant; that the cutting was done in self-defense; that had Eddins been killed it wonld heve been justifiable homicide; that the indictment alleging malice and intent to kill, the prisonor must be acquitted, even if he had not acted in self-defenco,because no malice and intent to kill lind been showh; that tho principal witness for the prosecntionliad contradicted himself under oath, that every material statement inehis testimopy had been disproved by the other witnesses, and that lie had beon directly impeached by a witness who had known him for 21 years, and swore that this reputation was that of notorions liar; that Hamner, the other witnoss for the prosecution, was evidently embittered against the accused, by whom he had been denounced in the Monitor, and, was contradicted by Edding and other witnessses in material matters; that the extracts from the Monitor which had been admitted as evidence had not been legally connected with Randolph in any way, no proof having been made that they were written by him, or that lie had' ever seen them; thant if Randolph wrote the articles that had been read to the Court, they had no bearing whatever oir the caso being tried, and should not be considered by the Court, that these articles had ovidently been introduced for the purpose of unduly prejudicing the judges against the prisonerjand that the Court owed it to themselves and the conutry to divest themselves of all political prejudices, to try the case upon its merits, and to render impartial justice between the govornment and the accused and, demanding this, they asked nothing more. These and other points that have escaped our attention were pressed upon the analyzed in its

Sources for

See all items with this value Balus Eddins