Newspaper Page Text
140
‘jl j . ,'a. :- i— ...
TtfRYWOLD, OA., MARCH 7, 1805.
TIio Trial of Joseph Ashfield, Jr.,
(Charged with the Offence of Arson) at
the March Term, 1856, of the Superior
Court of Putnam Co., Ga.; Containing
the Testimony in the Case, and the
Spoech of J. A. Turner, in Defence of
the Accused: Embracing a full Expo-
sition of the Law, and Philosophy of
Circumstantial Evidence.—Countryman
Print: Turn wold (near Eatonton) Ga.,
1864.
The State, 1
vs. > Arson.
Joseph Asbfield, Jr. )
SPEECH OF J. A. TURNER.
(continued.)
There is another fact which you must
bear in mind. The witness had a sick
negro, on the night of the burning. I
presume the negro was quite sick, even
unto death, for the witness had a negro
buried a few days afterwards. On this
negro he seems to have been bestowing a
good deal of attention. After ho received
the -‘alarm” of fire, he then went to see
the negro, before he went to the fire. He
was also up, several times, during the
night, before the alarm of fire, I suppose
to see his sick negro. To see this negro,
he had to go out of the house, and to come
back again. Suppose that he was up, to
sec his negro, twice, before the “alarm”
of fire: he would have to pass in and out,
four times, going and returning. Sup
pose he was up to see his negro three
timeg, before the “alarm” of fire; he
would haro to pass in and out, six times,
going and returning. And going out and
returning, after the “alarm,” would add
two passings chore to the sum total of his
passing* in and out of the house, on the
fiyght of the fire. Was it to have been
.expected that tfcie accused would have
waked ,up every time there was “ passing
.about ?” He might have waked, the first
time a passing occurred : he might have
waked the second time; but after that,
according to the nature of things, he
,wo,uld cease to be awakened by that to
wiiich his ear had become accustomed.
Let a clock be placed in the bed-chamber
pfaman where there has been no clock
before, lie lays him down to sleep, and
when the clock strikes the first time, it
arouses him. The second time it strikes,
be may hear it, being half asleep. At the
third striking, the vibrations of the atrnos-
here fall unheeded upon his ear, and he
ears the sound of the hammer as it falls
upon the bell, no more. The ear ceases
to give warning of any accustomed sound.
It is only unexpected, or unusual noises
1 hat awaken us. By the time the “pass
ing about,” upon the “alarm” of fire, oc
curred, th& ear of my client had ceased to
notice the sound that had become a fa
miliar one. And this is the reason be did
not wake up, when what is improperly
called the “alarm” of lire was given.
But the prosecution tell you that the
“alarm,” whatever it may have been, was
sufficient to awoken every other member
pf the family, and that they all got up but
THE COUNTRY
the accused. At this point, the witness is
not a-, all positive. He says that this is
so, “ as well as he recollects.” This
amounts to a mere impression. If he had
been positive that this was so, why does
he qualify his declaration by saying, “ as
well as he recollects?” I take it that the
witness was not in a frame of mind to have
a very clear recollection of what, transpir
ed, on the night of the burning. In the
first place, he was harassed with anxiety,
on account of his sick negro ; and in the
next place, ho was confused with a dispo
sition to go and help rescuo the property
of a neighbor from the flames. He telfs
us that “ he got up immediately, put on
his clothes, went to see his sick negro,
came back to the house, and went imme
diately to the burning.” These circum
stances, then, were not very favorable to
a vivid recollection of 4 the details of what
transpired on the night of the conflagra
tion. This the witness knew ; and hence
he would not state positively that every
member of the family got up ; but this
seems to have been his impression, “ as
well as he recollected.” True, he says
that he thinks if the prisoner had been up,
he would have recollected it.' But this is
not the point. Unless my client was pos
itively the only member of the family who
did not get up at the “alarm” of fire, this
part of the testimony passes for naught.
If others kept their beds, as well as my
client, then the fact that he was not up, if
proven, cannot affect him'in the least.
There is no positive proof that other mem
bers of the family did not keep their beds.
Is nothing to be allowed for the fact
that my client occupied a bed-room to
himself, in the south-east corner of the
building? Even if we admit that some
one came to the house, and gave’ an alarm
of fire, it is not at all probable that that
person went round to all the rooms, and
awakened their inmates. How many per
sons there were living in the house of the
accused, and the witness, we are not told.
All the members of the family, a* well as
witness recollects, were up, except the ac
cused. Now who were the other 'mem
bers of the family, and how many were
there ? This we are not told. If any
“alarm” wag given of fire, the messenger
must have come io the front part of the
house, first. I presume Sturdivant must
have slept in the front pal't of the house,
or he would not have received the “alarm”
ef fire. What then did he do ? Bid he
go to wake up the accused ? Ear from it.
His identical words arc, that he “ got up,
immediately, put on his clothes, went to
see his sick negro, came back to the house,
and went immediately to the burning.”
How, then, can it be said there was such
a tremendous “alarm” around the bed of
the prisoner ? The witness didn’t go to
his room, nor did anybody else, as we are
informed. The witness made no attempt
to waken my client, nor did anybody
else. He didn’t even, that we are aware,
pass by his room, and if he did, this iden
tical witness informs us that “persons
could go in and out of the passage, with
out disturbing the other members of the
family.”
The prosecution may tell you that Miss
AN.
Cynthia Ashfield also slept in a shed-room,
and she was up. This is not by any
means certain. As I showed you before,
there was some doubt on the mind of the
witness whether all the members of the
family, except the accused, were up. This
doubt, I take it, was as to whether Miss
Ashfield was up. And I’ll give you my
reasons for it. The house, in w hich tho
accused and the witness lived, seems to
consist of four rooms—two in the main
b®dy of the house, and two shed-rooms,
with a passage dividing the rooms of the
main building, and continuing on, so as to
divide the two shed rooms, thus extending
from the front, to the back of the house.
We hear nothing of any up-stairs. The
accused occupied one of the shed-rooms,
and Miss Cynthia Ashfield occupied the
other. The balance of the family, then,
whoever they were, including the witness,
occupied the two front rooms. If any
messenger came from the: fire, of course
he approached the front rooms first, and
it is not surprising their inmates were
aroused. Do you believe the messenger,
if there was one, went round to every
room, to awaken its inmate, or inmates 7
You believe no such thing. He would
merely deliver his message at the front
door, or a front window, and then retire,
leaving it to those whom he had aroused,
to waken, if necessary, the balance of the
family. Sturdivant, from all we can gath
er, was one of the first up. He must have
been aroused by the messenger, if there
was one. And he must have been ex
pected by that messenger to rouse the
other members of the family, if necessary.
There was no occasion for him to waken
those whg slept in the front of the house,
for they Had as good an opportunity to
hear the messenger as he himself did. He
could only have occasion to waken those
in the back of the house—and these were
the accused, and Cynthia Ashfield. And
hence I am correct in what I say of Cyn~
thia Ashfield. The doubt on the mind of
the witness as to whether all the family
was up, except the accused, must have
been, concerning this lady, because she
slept in one of the back rooms. Then I
take it that those who slept in the front
rooms were up, and those who slept in the
back rooms may have slept on, and never
have been roused at the mis-called “alarm”
of fire. The messenger who brought tho
“alarm,” if there was one, must have de
livered it, r.s I have said, at the front of
the house, and depended upon those who
slept in that part of the dwelling, and
.whom he awakened, to arouse the bal
ance, if necessary. Sturdivant was one of
those aroused. Did he awaken the ac
cused, whom be should have wakened,
had it been necessary? Ear from it. “Be
got up immediately, put on his clothes,
went to see his sick negro, came back to
the house, and went immediately to. the
burning.”
If nobody, then, awaked the accused,
why should be have gotten up ? Sturdv
vant’s passing in and out of the house
would not rouse him, because “ persons
could go in and out at the passage without
disturbing the other members of the fami
ly and besides this, there had been so