Newspaper Page Text
156
THE OOtnJTBYMAH.
-Wffjrftaap
TUKXWOLD, fijl, MARCH 14, 1865.
The Trial *>f Joseph Ashfield, Jr.,
(Charged *ith the Offence of Arson) at
the March Term, 1*56, of the Superior
C(v«rt of Putnam Co., Ga. : Containing
*Se Testimony in the Case, and the
Speech of J. A. Turner, in Def< nee of
the Accused: Embracing a full Expo
sition of the La v, and Philosophy of
Circumstantial Evidence.—Countryman
Print: Turn wold (near Eatonton) Ga.,
1864.
The State,
vs. J- Arson
Joseph Ash field, Jr
SPEECH OF J. A. TURNER.
(continued.)
Such, gentlemen, would be the reason
ing of the prosecution, if the accused, in
stead of talking, when others talked to
him about the burning, had kept silent
There is much truth in the old adage,
‘Give a dog a bad name, and you had as
well bang him.’ Because my client has
had something to do with the girl Jane,
his guilt is a foregone conclusion. All
that is expected of you is, that you should
go through with the formality of writing
the verdict, which the prosecution have
already made up. All the testimony that
is introduced here, is brought forward—
not to assist you to mnke up your verdict,
for that has already been done for you,
but—for the purpose of affording you a
shadow of a pretext for the verdict which
you are to be merely the passive instru
ments in recording. I doubt not, gentle
men, you will say by your action, that
you are competent to make up your own
verdict, and that there must be something
mere to support it, than mere disjointed
fragments of conversations—garbled ex
tracts from answers that are brought out
from the accused by words addressed to
him by those who were pumping him to
drag out from bis lungs some breath of a
word that might convict him.
The prosecution, in this connection,
speak of the great cunning, and uncom
mon shrewdness employed by the accused,
to avoid detection, after they say be has
committed the crime. How inconsistent
the prosecution are in this matter 1 When
it serves their purpose, the accused is very
cunning and shrewd ; aad when they
c*n’t get along, otherwise, they make him
a born fool. When they wish to use
Sturdivant’s testimony about what occur
red at the burial, (hen Joseph Ashfield is
an exceedingly smart fellow— tremen
dously sagacious in falling upon plans to
avoid suspicion. And so be is smart and
sagacious in numberless other things con
nected with this burning. But when they
seek to use old Mrs. Ashfield’s, and Henry
Walsh’s testimony, then they make my
/'lionf fVio Kimvncf fnnl in tKa nnfiAn P
client the biggest fool in the nation. He f s
got no better sense, then, than to utter
words—even on the streets of Eatonton,
on general election day, the most public
U time in the county—utter words
MH judge. Put we^Lathe prosecution, point
Uy *<ne a*uxe rule by which we judgfc'btV as does
pie, apd teat rule Is said-down in the bible. [ - - , „ ,,
sheriffs go to arrest the accused, in spite
Of his shrewdness, and sagacity, at other
times, and' places on that occasion, he has
no better sense than to blab out words
which will, without a shadow of possibili
ty of doubt, lead to his convictiori. And
this brings ineto the testimony of Fitts
and Walker, the conbfudfng branch of ev
idence in this case.
The prosecution seek to show, from the
manner in which the accused conducted
himself when arrested, that he must be
guilty. They infer his guilt, 1st, from his
‘peeping out of the window;’ 2dly, from
his being ‘in a running position;’ 3dly,
from his being ‘scared ;’ and 4thly, from
his sayinc:, ‘I never done it;’ all facts be
ing in perfect keeping with the balance of
the testimony on which the prosecution
rely.
Now, gentlemen, about this peeping out
of the window. Walker has it ‘peeping
out of the window,’ and Fitts has it ‘look
ing out of the window.’ I suppose it
makes very little difference which expres
sion we use, as the act is the same. I be
lieve it is the custom, gentlemen, for peo
ple in this country, to look out of th'e
windows from their houses at persons
whom they see coming up. And though
it may be a very wicked and sinful prac
tice, jet I know of no law fot bidding it;
and l believe there is nothing in the state
or federal constitution against it; neither
is it contrary to the letter or spirit of the
resolutions of ’98 and ’99. And if a per*
son should go a little farther than looking,
and even peep out of the window, I still
think it violates no penal statute, no con
stitution, and no declaration of rights. On
the contrary, I think it might perhaps be
violative of natural right to pass any law
which would make peeping out of win
dows, or through holes, a criminal offence.
Especially would such a law operate se
verely upon the fairer portion of humani
ty, who consider it an inestimable privi
lege, and an inalienable right to gratify
their curiosity. And to a great extent,
this is true of the rougher sex. If then,
gentlemen, you do not wish to create re
bellion, and revolutionize the government,
you had better not send my client to the
penitentiary just because he had the im
pudence to peep at the high sheriff of Put
nam county, and his deputy.
We are told that at the arrest, my client
was ‘in a running position.’ Yes, gentle
men, he was actually guilty of the enor
mity of being ‘in a running position.’
This no doubt was unfortunate, if not
criminal. But pray tell me what other
position he could be in ? Fitts tells us the
prisoner was going out to meet him, when
be arrested him. Now how would the
high sheriff, in the performance ot his
functions, have a man approach him, but
in a running position ? W hat is a running
position ? Standing erect on one’s feet is
a running position. Mind you, the sheriff
does not say Ashfield was running, but
‘in a running position.’ How could he be
otherwise ? Did Fitts expect the accused
to be standing on his head, when he met
him ? Did he expect him to be lying
down ? Did he expect him to be on his
piy or _ -t-V-* to orawl
invited to confer with them. I
upon hia belly, as the serpent is compelled
to do, because be seduced old grand-mo
ther Eve, Joseph having seduced Jane f
Or did the high dignitary who made' the
arrest, expect my client to fall down upoft
his knees before him, just because he was
sheriff? Joseph Ashfield may have shown
a want of proper respect for Mr. Fitts’s
dighfty, by being in a running position ;
but f appTehend this was all the crime he
was guilty of,- in this respect.
The object of the prosecution is - to show
flight on the part of the accused, slid in
this way make out his guilt. And how
do they begin it? Their witness, Mr.
Walker, testifies that when ho rode up to
the house of the accused, he was peeping
out of the window. Upon seeing Mr.
Walker, he reached back his hand, as
witness supposed, to get his hat. And
this is a very natural conclusion. But
what next ? Why the deputy sheriff takes
a notion that the accused is going to run
away, and so he bounces off of his horse,
and runs round to the end door. He bad
gone asheriffing, and sheriffing he was
bound to do. We read in Hudibras,
"Then did Sir Knight abandon dwelling.
And out be rode a colonelling.”
Walker didn’t go out ‘a colonelling,’ but
he went out asheriffing, and he didn't in
tend to be disappointed. To get down y
and go in the house in a quiet way t and,
after passing the usual courtesies, to tell
the accused he was nis prisoner—this did
not consist with his idea of official duty.
So he runs round, as I have said, to the
end door, and upon entering the house,
what must have been his surprise to find
the accused, instead of running away from
his august presence, going right into the
arms of the sheriff. Here was an expla
nation, now, of Ashfield’s reaching back
to get his hat. It was to put it on hie
head, and go out to meet Mr. Fitts, and
Mr. Walker, as gentlemen and neighbors,
or as officers of the law. It seems to me
Walker must then have felt as if he had
‘a flea in his ear.’
Gentlemen of the jury, can you be made
to believe this supremely ridiculous stuff
about the prisoner’s attempting to run
away ? You are not told by the witnesses
that he ran. Oh 1 no; for everybody
knows he didn’t. But the impression is
sought to be made on your mind that he
did, by telling you he was ‘ in a running
position.’ W hat folly to suppose the ac
cused attempted to run ! Walker tells
you that when he rode up to the house,
the accused ‘ was standing in the house,
peeping through a window.’ Now, of
course, he must have seen the sheriffs
coming, before they saw him. If he had’
been going to run, why did he not do so
as soon as he saw Fitts and Walker ? Why
did he wait until they got to the very door,
and attempted to hem him in ? But again ;
W alker had time to get down off of his
horse, enter the yard, by going through
the gate, or jumping over the fence (for
yards are generally fenced in) and run
round to the end door, before the accused
got out of the room where the sheriffs first
saw him. Only think of that, gentlemen.
W alker had time to do all this sheriffi"" —
go ^through with all these «▼*'