Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

VOL. 4. NO. I. MAEDOX& GLENN VS. GOfi' R Speech of C. D. Maddox Printed in Full. HE REVIEWS ALL THE EVIDENCE And Sakes & Very Spicy Argument From the Memorialists’ Point es View—Read Both Sides. « Week before last The Free Press •ent oat a supplement containing the speech of lion. George R. Brown before the Gober investigating com- [ mittec. Only three hundred snip p’ements were furnished ns, ami con- ; sequently all our readers did not get’ them. It was spicy reading matter as is everything else uttered or writ ten by Geojge Brown. Below we put dish the speech of Col. <t. D. Maddox, one of the memo rialist. The public now have both •ides of the question, and can judge for themselves. It will be right and fair, however, to state again that the legislature almost unanimously ex-, otwmted Gober from the charges in the memorial. Alt the parties are friends tn The Free Press, and have endeavored to act fairly tn publishing both sides of the argument. Below is Colonel Maddox's speech : The charges embodied in the me-I mortal presented to the House of Representatives, stated, in short, an as follows to-witr First, tyrannical cx-r.Juct on and immediately after the tpial. Second, ths altercation of the motion for new trial. Third, the op pressive issuing of a rule. Having stated all the charges I now consider them as briefly as pos sible, in their regular order. The proof is that the v. Edict was ! tendered against the four defendants. Pendley. Jones, Eli and Tom Fields, on Thursdav forenoon, Mav 9, 1890. The counsel for the defendants irn- * mediately prepared, (1) a motioq for a new trial, jnd ,2) a mot-on in arrest. of judgment Said Gober declined and refused »o consider or hear either of said mo tions. He refused to allow either of said motions to be filed. He refused to grant a supersedeas of the sen leuces, then and there being urged and requested to do so. The motion for new trial included the usual formal grounds, “that the yerdiet was contrary to law and con trary to evidence.”' Io this case the formal grounds were substantial gronfe. It is true no brief was then tiled, which every lawyer in Georgia knows could not be done, but this applied only to the motion for new trial. The bill of indictment was fatally defective, ami in that count in the in dictment upon which the defendants were convicted. there was absolutely bo offense charged. No lawyer who valued his reputation would tor a question that this motion was meritorious. Aa every lawyer knows, no brief of evidence is. necessary or pertinent on a motion in arrest. Reference solely to the pleadings—the--hill of indictment—coaid be made in this Kt-MUTO. It was insisted then and 4here that a brief of evidence was wholly immaterial and a supersedeas asked o® this morion. This request was declined. the de fendant, Geo. F. Gober. announced, however, that be would meet the coonsei at night for the purpose of hearing and considering their bo toes. After supper, counsel for de fendants repaired to the Court House, and 'here waited more than an hour for this defendant to keen his ap poKKusent. Finally, t’risg of this delay, a sheriff was despatched to hunt up the Jwdgeaad notify trim that eoan •ri wa» still wailing. The sheriff re twmed wit* the aanownceaaent—that that he >*» a.x feeung writ Need asyri-asg more be to eSßcia ',&> a*-. of « fixes I. 4.-.-toss-/- Oe Itolwetii free 1 ■ ■ i. * If he were sick, why permit counsel to keep the engagement at all? He and counsel w ere stopping at the- I same hotel. Moreover, why delay' more than an hour to notify them? His conduct in this partk-itlar was wilfully rule mid disv .mrtcotls. On Friday morning those moti ■:>>’ were again pres nted, and as often I I refused. This time he excused him self by saying “he was not feeling well enough, ami that he had taken up as much time of the court with , ‘ these defendants as he intended t' • Ilavinn excused -himself on the, [ ground that he was n .t feeling very ■ well, be Siid his solicitor general, the Hon. Geo. IL Brown, procured a | horse and buggy, rede out of town I and over the mountains of Pickens ! county to Hon. E. W. Alred’s, a di - : lance of six or seven miles, took riin | ner there and attended to examining, no doubt with extreme care, and i pure asing some very valuable mar i ble property. Not only did they abandon this case we were trying to represent, but , they absolutely left the court while a ?-.;ry was out. having been entrust- i I ed with the solemn duty of finding a verdict in a case which had been j - submitted tu them. Nay, more, this Judge prepared and left with some i attorney there a “pocket order” en-' 1 abling the attorney to adjourn the i court, and this Judge took the train some miles below Jasper and went to his home at Marietta without returu- - ing to the court. They were too sick to remain and attend to the public duty devolving • uiM?n them, as judge and solicitor, , but quite able to attend to their own private, and just then, more profit able affairs. The defendants were convicted, as - stated, on Thursday—they were sent off at once and next evening were i lodged at Dade Coal Mine- the pen i itentiary. While the defendants were lining ' hurried to the peniti ntiary. Geo. 1 . ■ Gober and his solicitor general were I hurrying to Alred’s to buy this val -1 liable marble property. i He refused to take up more of the I co'ari’s time with the defendants—' I but he got in two davs of tin- court’s i time.—that-belonged to the public—, attending to his own private affairs. The business of the court and .pub lic, set at nouglu, when he desires to gooff on a trading expedition. ‘‘■Public office is a public triigt,”— but a trusa that must give way to th? 1 private concerns of the officers of the “Blue lii-Ige Circuit.” This conduct on the part of these | officers struck me as a public shame, 1 a disgrace to the State, and an out- I rage on decency ami a violation of i their [uiblic duties, and 1 am of in-? : Same opinion still. Just how long this Judge will be ; permitted to abuse the patience of the people is in extreme doubt but rin behalf of the private citizens off I the Blue Ridge Circuit -excludiutt court officials and a few who have deep personal interests in retaining ■ this rotten regime, I enter a vigorous: ; protest. The people, aside from the little ! cliques and rings that are feeding off i the perpmsites of this system, are rc- I beliious and already their mummur- I ing3 are resounding aloud. All sorts of aeports and charges ar.- being eir-. cuiate<l and printed. These things :do not exist in any other circuit in this Stcte, ami no such condition j could arise in the BlqO Ridge, but for the most powerful causes. It may require nerve and man j hood, but these people are looking to this committee for relief from these I evils. It is claimed that one of the coun sel was ‘-irrepressible and discourt eous’’ during the trial of this case, i But an examination of the record ' stamps the charge and the evidence as without any foundation in fact. Besides, numerous witnesses in -1 eluding awyers and laymen, includ ing some of the jury that tried the case, as well as two of the defend i ants, repodiate the charge and de monstrate its falsity. It is remarkable that those wit nesses in their efforts to sustain this defendant would give evidence that this charge was true and not be able to specify from the record or their recollection a single instance of un becoming conduct, either in language jor manner towards fire court, on the ! part of the counsel. The Judge himself, on L-ing press e-1 to specify a single inst.i.ice when eo-onse! disobeyed hi-, rulings, an swered that in one instance counsel asked a question not per se leading, but that counsel could act it into a leading question. Was there ever sa h puerile nonsense, such bald a-- sfuinity escaped the lips of mortal aan ? The next objection is, that if it had lx?en true that one of th? coun sel ua-I been gui|ty --f the charge of discourtesy or anything e!»e uul>c -.r-mlng c-iur.- i. -li conduct could not excuse or justify this Judge in retaliating in Lk - < >:>du t. It was his duty to maintain ».t.c respect due tee court am! require the c»JW»seI U> ♦now pn/per re poet for the c.>urt. AgaL-s, upon wlsat theory can he CiXtda- t t-o tiw/se g - Qi'LP 3’o mu ':r. ALI'IIAIIETTA. GL. I'll:!' f. ■’ M ■ defense nn J. a.-Jnst whom uo charge of di-courlcsy has I ecu nr- ’e? I hey ■ ; were entitled" to decent treatment at 1 least from this def.-nd.int. The said Gao. I'. Gober made mi distinction. Hi.- conduct towards all ' ami singular the • ur.isci was singm i > iarly fre.- from every clement of judi feihl atid professional courtesy. The i evidence shows also that the counsel ; for those defendants did everything :in their power to ‘‘facilitate the I trial”—the jury was stricken from | 1 panels of -iv, seven and eight; more, ' , t he ease., w . nt cm with elevon jurors.” ( ■mid :u v ti t or eiiv umstmiee 1 more completely show that the gen tlemen conducting the- defense were ' using their best efforts to “fm liiato , the trials?” Concede that Gober v in his treatment prrsnindly to Mr. Glenn, was his cot.duct toward the defendants. Pendley, Jones, Tom and j Eli Fields, justifiable? According to Gober’s own stale ■ nieiit in the application for pardon to the Governor “They wore simple tnindod farmers.” How did said i Gober treat these “simple-minded farmers?” and how did l[e conduct j their trials? First lie excluded the father of i one of them from the court house. Secondly He sent an eld man. a minister of the Gospel, to jail, with out any bearing, for twenty days, ' and fined him two hundred dollars. Thirdly -Ifpon their tri il for their ; live.., an accomplie-e who had surren dered up hi a trade with the State to be turned loose and | ut upas a wit ness by the State, to swear away their lives, this Judge on his own motion and at his own instigation ' denied counsel the right of asking leading quest ions on cross-examina tion, and from the merest suspicion that the ruling was about lobe evad ed, manifested iiis animus toward.. , the poor defendants and their coun sel by a threat to line. Fourth- It may be seen by refer-' once to the charge of the court, to tiie jury that this charge is an argu-1 , inent against the defendants. Fifth-The trial was forced far' into the night, without any reason. Sixth When the verdict, came in counsel was pounced upon by this . Judge for rising to make n sugges tion as to the form < f the v'enh.'t. Seventh—They were hurried to I the penitentiary instantly upon the rendering pf the Vil’diet convicted ' :on Thursday forenoon they were j i lodged in the penitential v’ the next ' day. Eighth—lie wouldn’t even look' at, much less consider, any motion ' :in their favdr, nor even permit the I motion to be tiled - he says “that he ! there was nothing in the motion ;n i : arrest. Not having considered it or read I it how could he think anything at all | about it? In the next place what ho thinks; on a law point is not even prima i facia evidence—as to the value of the ' point. As evidence,of his capacity as a lawyer he swore during this itivesti- , gation that in October, 1 'ltd, he did not know that a certificate to the | Dill of Excejitions was incorrect' which did not comply' with the law passed November 11th, l ?--9, nearly a year before. That the motion in arrest was good I was conceded by Harrison & I‘eeples, who represented the State in the Su preme Court, and would* have been sustained but for the dismissal of the case. Ninth In order to avoid hearing them he left the Court on I’riday morning and did not return. In short, to sum up this branch of the ca>e, the facts are coneeded, and * no effort whatever has been made to | break their force except their attack ! on Mr. Glenn, and I submit that all that evidence about the latter lias no ' relevancy to the conduct of Geo. I’. Gober, but is lugged in this trial to divert attention from the real issues; i and it is therefore claimed with con- ' fidence that the charge ob tyranny and arbitrary conduct on the part <sf i Geo. F. Gober is not only proven but conclusively demonstrated bj the evidence. Second —On the second charge 1 j cite 4171 of the Penal Code: “Steal- 1 ing or Altering Public Documents.” “If any Judge, Justice, .Major, ■ Aiderman, Clerk, Sheriff, Coroner, or other public, offii er or any other! person Whatsoever, -hall steal, cm tM.-zz.le, alter, corrupt, withdraw, fa's- j ify or avoid any redord, process, gift, charter, grant, conveyance, or con tract or shall forge, detacc or fal ify i any document of in trument record . ed or any regi.-try, acknowledgement or certificate; or -hail alter, deface, or falsify any minute, document,' book or any proceeding whatever <>f i or belonging to any public office within this >tate, or if any person I shad cajise or procure any of the of fense i'a for esaid to }>■ <■ mmittod -n -; ire in any wise concerned therein, the person -■> offending shall be pun- > i.shed by in.pri- uimenl and labor in the ptiulen’i try for any time not less . i than two ye.i n r lunger than ten , , v ears.” - That panic Hr , art winch covers this ease is ; mid .“li dispute, leaving : ont the Other things in th<- same see- ! ;:on. reads as foil >wik wit: “if :n\ judge . Ju, ■. r. ■ falsify any procte !:i g -whaii vri pi or belonging to '. 'vit’ein this st '.t<\ thijbyei- m so ■ t ; tending shall be |imwn: ’ I by iiAp onnient ami Libor ih 'lie penile, ti.i \ i'.'r :li>y time Hot io.. !' ;’u tu ■> and not longer tli.i ; lr i ■’s." Now, it is nd r.cci|»..-.;gv to go be yoml the evident- G.irgo'E.' 'Giber, the ilcfeml.ml ; ->w on ti i.-.1,. |to gel proof to <• f'-(• :.im. The; ■ i.i.itioiis m ere tik J ■ .'th, 4S!< -, j by “ord: r and liirL , y ‘>f (>e<.rg.-■ I-’. Gober. 'l'he oru tLv. rt made at thetrial, one in -n . ’-rev it" ■. t>n June alii, 1 -'.io, 1 i- • t .viler or del’ed that the !..'•■* faj.— then pre- ■ tented, Tiotli fAr y • ■ u m i m' arrest, be filed eti tbei solicitor g'.-ni ial, ; k‘..',f n;l: ! n s'.ov . came whv the nrnft m b<mld not, tie! granted, (bi Urtt' u.l-e :he Solicitor| general was seined, i. r<- is tii" record and tlfe highest and best, ovi ■ deuce on both poii'ts f “Pickens Supeir r <’< art, .April I Term, b-'JI], This ap.viioation i.-r . new trial lias been rea l and c n-iJ : cred. Let tl»r solicitor general lie ( served and show eause'before nw iiistanter or sp hooii s counsel can ; be heard why -the tlflticn shall not. be g' aiUcd. “The verdict of f Cts duly :i| proved and 'lie eLm'gi n <<.s inodilic I . by the entire charge arol taken with I it are as approved as i.raic. “Gi.i ‘: ,l I . G.w.i-i:, “Judge “updiioi' Coiiit.” I “Due and legal servi I pm with- in ju< lion fur nwwbff'Gd is lieieby acknowledged, ami .*! other i" : i turilier service of said motion by copy or otherwise fig new trial is hereby waived.' Anri, term, IMM, June olh, IS'JO. “Geojuu Hj. Rit’iWN, “Solieit’m < lenerid.” ' .Approved cr ui I'p >ved, and i j is wholly immateii.il for the pui'|- »• :cf pr \ im* eommi'.s' f a < rur ! under this •-•.lute. i'i •tb- mom ' lot' filing, the motion G fV- W trill be j comes a proccc ling hi Lnging t :i ; public office of this that can- ■ mil be gains iid. ( | If approved,- M.-ipg- Haoon -ay-.' “That close s th.' case • Th ■ Hutu. • i; not, so generous n .r 'l.'iior m. I nmkes no . .-. i pti< n. -ii 1 ■)■ es t. t permit a judge, by g to put ; ! th<' proper euder e>l ' 'x; al on th -1 l.'otl o •I- Mt . </'■.. I ! wremg and thereby tue'i.tin- ! rishmm.t. < I The statute pro) Jth ■ altering 1 of »“Ai ■■ ! the statute • i on. , th" cl“ critical, analvtieal " u ot t!.i --' coinnutl',-'.'. 11' the motion v. , -approve 1 lon June- olh, Ihf't Amb'i' the evi- | ; deuce 1 pri .diic- lem f/ ' ' '' m ' but if left unappr 1 I submit ii i war. so left, for ~n , o ' put pi > . Gober swear lbs’ W. ( . Glenn I : ami myseif 11 i"d i his appro 1 , il > ion tiie motion, mi -1'“. ~'Jth, f-'.Jf', I anil again on August 1 1 tl>, 1 !!'■>, aii'L :that hi' ri'fuscd. ’i the argument I for new trial v. .:- made on :m uu j proved record. What more coni 1 I'l.unsel do? it 'Gober’s v. ri-i-m be r rrecl, he de ; Inyed the approval until after the argurne.nt. Wlia.tfor? Why did Jog ido that? There i-l.'.it one ;.i: '•'.ei'. j lie elelayed it to got (he bei.i-fit of 'argument, that lie might the l;e’t:-i Ibe able to ffiO'i-it Ilia! lire -tpr< im court would not reverse liis de i-i-m.; The fact that he refu ■• I toap-| prove* the motion before argument i land “corree-t” it if it need l d corrcc- • tioii, eicinom-t.rah'S his corrupt pur- | pose and fixed determination to with-; hold his approval until he could hear] 'the argument ami th .i it. I alter it, and mutilate it in anj m.m --' ner necessary to pre veid a. fair pr< - sentation of the fact front re-i-.:lr:g the supreme court. But tb" r< -ad shows that the-’motion was approved June nth, I’i'.)!). •’ Over our objections, Iritvtv r, the 'committee allowed G ’• -r to irnpuc h his own record nch a. rulivg i ! without a paralh 1. Wc cite here the mnb i iiic., thm ! the committee, deelim -f •<, allow n -1 to read, in opposition to this ruling: 1 (den. Ex. 275, ,':2f p. iud , h » dition;-9 fowa f.d; I. (2); 37 \t. f'. I Gray (Mass.) 395; 1 I'l'tliip-. Aim? •E. 753; 2 Phillips Evident-" '■ 1 : 2 Stnrkie 544, 548; J M,'& W. 379, ! 330; 2 Starkie liv. p.’705; il ■ x ( im. Ev. p. 1. “Comls not tee-lmi' illy records, if such court : ore-ei v* 1 r:' ten me-morials of 1 he.■" y>r- " H ■ those memorials are th ’only . tic modes of proof, '.hir-h th iall-iws.” Roscoe’s Gri ninal E 2, citing 3 Starkie JA . I - 13, 1 ■ ■ tion (1). Black on Jmlgmc" ts. 1 .1249; 25 Minnesota, IX3: lon E .. ' vol., 400; 2 H iw 318; 3 Thus. Coke, t-u p. ; 'P- s --; 2 Philips, p. 2: 2i. Aelolplius, 3G2; 1 lie email, .. ■p. 275, p. 2)0; ].’ L>a 151; - 24C; 19 Am. 81 Rep. 47‘,“ * ?»• r J •/1 •> Mt •**:., o N. Y., 173; G Oregeu trii: Dec.; ’ ■■ i . 51 12 Am. . 14'!: 12..' ¥.; 13 . V, . gl “II; Dig.-iow on 1' u. 30; g. f , ’il;'; I F.ttil i Ala., 1 .-I; 7 •' ‘ !•..••; V'“ Ind.. I. Plleu Ve l'lt \ us 11 '.".rd 'tppiic 10l litsl'd.. 1 - 1 , Ai d lh' r-c.'...i-e cvidem .■ i>'' imt ad iseiible to h-w (hat the) <Lit" lof the judgment, us i' nype.a s i t ti e l l 1 jlh in- : fill . Id. .... ' ■ | rc.i.”. I '. ’re-citan 57G (21 citing ‘.’s ■ Min. PM. ■ ’ 84 \. \V., .'. d; ' ) \. E„ 191: “ i IS. !■:., 9IH; G S„ ..co. 8 Al.'.; 2 Wlmt.on mi' l’v. to-j biting I, st. hf'e Am D. :>2; Be t. on Ev. r- •“ L < They teltlc this controversy :uid i put it b . oml cavil, that tho tuisitie-n. we t.'ok i corri'cf. A\ 5:1.1 sal.cty isflmru hi jmli, ia» in i .n, u "'.t mmseti-tO tolmyc' j f-.e ' di » .rnjbo thtl ! I impereffi.- . . • ~ ■ • " jmT ■ '"'.rfl i' j makes them, when it become s neites sary for him in hi e defense to some l charge whir h involves tin 1 same rce i-ord. 1 '.-I, m 'I, rv' \v with all'llurts, i with law and oreler, if only thei i “simple-minded" farmers of this ■ ! I are to be tried by them. \\ li..t an ' : tlfivrity is there 1 for cxenip'.mg thi-1 . man f ■ nt "i-ing tried like other p .. ■' pie? .! he above the law, that tin l j 1 law should l.c vi< lut' d to protect - ; him ? | Recurring to section 1171 of flic. Code of (Jeorgia', which faslen tbisi ! defendant it'he “alt.'ird a proceed7: ! : belonging to a p’uliiic. office ot i:u.. j state. 1 submit that tiie alter.dions are of j i two charecti-rs: Eir t, 1 iiysical.. I c.'-e nid, in ihe manner ■ i si ttemonm lof th.- ground- of the niou.m. Ict it, be reim-mbi red, too, that, the ■ alterations occurred h'. pti.tiibc: 1 i .r>, I th' tin. l .- the ni i >tl"U wa.i over: d.-d. Now, as to the “physic.;iit< ra tion, tht-ie is no controver y wliat- I ever. It is not denied, but cohfessed Iby < b.bcr on his tri il ' " lor. llii I ceniinitl. <•• This defendant, the s.iid Gober, j now endeavors to induce th 1 belii-f , : that aft T l.bsiract'ugthe.. ■ f:ilir ■■. I ! lie afterwards handerl the n to the' derk. To rliow the utter fal ify of his I claim, Lit' r i n in this'lriii he admits that .Mi . Glenn and mys< If, in (b-to bcr, I '.m. carried the record to him i at'Mtn ietta, and La-1 it th'r on the: ! day we required him to make-meh ■ eori' et.ii n us we c< tild get at, just as lie filed them in I'leptemL. r with the | ■ ch : k. : ing pa v,i ni with that record on] I the 'lav we w t'o lie tor: him at .M. 11 -: 'violin ‘ b-t< i er, and the i .mr iimi.-iug I page iv. re m-t with the record. Beside' 1 , if they wire incot nit, 1 and lie had altered, changed'or “<or-| reeled” them as lie claiiii.i, what li.i im '• i..i I ihi I '-" l-mr page ;to In ; liled with tiie reeoi I ? It will be re inemlycred th it because of the ab- I settee of those four pages pail of the 1 ori"in.'l ndi'.'ii could not b" rc-ii:- J aimed. Gober say th.-t the t v ord Mr. ! Glenn addr - i d to him was, .“whe,e ri.■ that sheet wlu-rc the typewritten I copy was supplied in the m-.tion ? z I 'told l.ini 1 ilelr.ereik it tu the clerk.' ! Amoiig .di the rambling an I ■ rir’ent. slmtcinents of the limn tin-, i j :tr« Horn 1 that moi ll a snr< dly nii-.- 1 ! him tic ri his s!at<-meiit < along tiii ' I limos di fi n- 1 -. ! ,‘■biige of tii ■ grounds be tc:, u “hi l Iruck "tit. < ii-ntlenien o. the eqni mift'-e, pause for otic mom. ui and: t.liud. oi this action as co. . , -"d L ; himself. j. He struck out part of th' l mof.i ai and'the record is iiiw' silent on liml point, 'i bis ease 'L nion-t rate i t iiat | such action is not only in vioi.m.i i.-: 'the I’eim.l ritalefc, bat. hows the in-: I convenience of nidi j .acti ■<•,.. It '.becomes material in tin inv< ■'ig.'iii-m now to know just wl:Ui tho:.'. Iquests cotifaim-d. If In. had not mutilated this record, it. would : howl the truth a to th eoiitents of th:i. ! part of the motion. His <• >m!i' ; i I'cnders. it i.o-. 1 ,- impossible '.-> ;:;-i-vr-, fam what tl. • original r- <-o;d ’ ..>n- i trim. if He altered, according to hri own ; cuniession, by changing rorrr » <»i o themptiotably the one d'aliug the threat to fine, by tio.ing om tiie ; original eround i;i tL motion and L l . i .-nb.-t.itlitiiig one in in-, own fan .<■■;; . ■ t and rad.ieaijy different i:i -no :au;-i : from the first, tin- o, i'/in d grouad ! being . takci; < nt of tii" rc'- ,id , and l > tin. lay i-out, of it; n-.-I lie' : altered oth r grom I- by a Idi-ig p-repnr.‘ -i. He im.-rl'- f a 1- : «■ - t t.r.'i'l from the evidence as part of In mmc of th. ■ ■. tiling- did he * ■ dW tie 1 e tiii" , and that v. i- > p.i-u nt ee' -ted (* i < i : . 1,1 t 1 -.'i ' uxeopt H 1 were unfair. He was Imlkt-I o 1 si- line, and it liOi'anw necc - .ary to d—. i: n mime e’li'-r Ri h uno to in',; tin: t> allega ti hi , of error, and he :id-,pled the < n ■ of hit; iing flor grounds in the iitetion as most likely to avail Li:- I ptwtwine .. Itris thoti jit, niulrr the law, of | the <1( feudant to rinvo for a new irial, ami hi ’-i ight. to state Upon what ' ;.rmiinL ho will ask for a new trial. ' it is not the. right of the judge to ' imik. the nioti' i fur now trial nor | .my,p.;rl .ri it not one wor ' ..f it. I I.c , o ,y spp' . u ■ .Ii- t I prove, but it Lgtiott lii.s light to alter | mid to ch.tiigo tlju r' eprjU.ih for trild, : irifiy . .ify J ri* irdrtte. "•“ '1 his defendant li.id held (he office of solicitor goimi.il for two terms, and had cuu red on his term ns jrn! -o, and he certainly will not bo heard to I say that In- did not. kim.v the law. He lyiuw that it was ;i felony to ['■alter a proceeding of or belonging to any public, office within thin slate:" • he km v,- that the office of chrkß f ; superior court of I’ickens county was . not a private office, but wa a “puli lie office;'’ be knew that this motion I '.ird been “filed” in and belong" Ii" [lh::t public iriliei-; fin knew Ilia’, il ' Lad bi i n filed at the time mid on th- (laic re-p.iirc 1 ;iml directed” by him- li, nml L ■ V as present w hen it, was tiled. v | Ast.> win', o'-emr.-l in Oct d.cr. lat .Mm iet.l c herii'i’ 'fcL-ino swears i that I. w.-i • pre-a nt durii'g part of : tile proceedings and ho sn'.v Judg , (iolicr v rifiug, also Sheriff Moon . , sv.> that at. tun.lm r time v hen i .McLane was not pre-I’lit he h:i .v Go- I her doing* coinc writin;-; llirt’.-fm-e, it | appear* fi-'iin the evidence <nf li. t.v»o witim-a..* introduced b\ Gobi-r, | hitiist If, that tlii- mi 1 Gobi-r th"U ami I there tha’ day did euiisidei.tbly ni"" i writiiip. than he would : dinii on tii I invesligiitiou; il in a little rin- .iL.r thtil, both his w itm -.e, at different times should Lave Knell him engaged [ in writing if he did no more than lie i-.dmits hmiself. . 11l this pil l ii-.iiln.i- Gober is <|lt.'ire ly i on’...dieted liy two of lr . own . wilm .. es. Goln r admits we complained of t!i“ c mdii i ui of the 1 ei'nr.l mid that | w<i write hi:- t. niq laiui. ■■ • it. ii. ill.- ,I'huit I :m,l Ii -ill- alm amm • ->! a. yt. -I .j. i ,it: he I.m . ' .'.'iih I- i bmi iJn in i ity'if.. ! moti 'ii on its origin.il e indit.on. Our letter to Mr. Darticdl, dated Sept. 29, I |.-!m, I |, um. . Ili.m. the motion wa 'not th(' otic we in.uh- but liia. parted : It wa... out and gone, 'flu . letl. r v..-.d I written by uh to one of ou: a n-irii -- counsel immediat'-ly oil tln- i< ci-|dion [.ri tie.-.-paper., tifl.'i tin ir :J'-n-arioii, [and was pre.mived by .Mr. Dirm-ll 'an 1 alt ndicd by him .: pail, f In • [ an-.vs i to the rule i m. I :.gainst all I the attorni y s recently, .After the imtiring in (fetob r, Is9b, (’.ipl. Newman .wearsthat lat' in the | evening Mr. Giern and I both walk' .1 from tin-i-oui !. lioim- in M.u ii-tt.i to illc. Elmwood lioU I, a short <li lance in clear vin ~ I'j l 'j win ri he was, and [ that we th.-a and tin r-i stated Io him 1 tliitt. v. ■ lr' I jc-t been ci; *ag< d be fore Gober ami th it we thi n ami r.l.ated io liim, ( ;pt. '. in n, whai. ' we had been d fug, tii o*W" iia.d I < .m ■ before Gobi i to L x'- i ,m c .riad a motion, aud lb it. he had taken out. ground •. oi tii" m l m a."I put int o l it thing> v. .th which wi- h. 1 nothing ■to do. I lii ; chai go v. ..a unde idm’ da - ,- p’lbln iy and no .• c wa.i i-vei ma t« of tiiese chai; 1 ' ;. Tiii.'l 'J'liis brii.g, me to tin- I ch ir-'i; in tin: tin moi i.ti that the said G iber instituted am; i~>m-d a rule a-f.iinsl. Mr. (Jlcnii and my-.df with out prob.iide i . is<-, tyraii-' l. ly a id "i’i" ■•' iV’-ly. 11. Is clmim dby < - .her j “tp.it lie wanted tlii . ni itmn I »r new Iri.-J, as lie wanted to u Lat pair one Lan down took i.i the , ata.-m ■ I .e, tri -d ui Alay, I .-'a ~” A-. Lans dowu was not a party at ail to this rnoti n) nobody hut G-ibrr > hc-c 'tin :,!<•: ; tfii. .f : i; ■He, < .ob'-r, <-lamis “im a-ked for the motion ioi ' a new trial made in theca of j'eml- ■ ley Jones, Tom and i.li f-’r-l I-..’ 1 irtl, it wa > not in the clerk s oiiicc ■ and tiie clerk applied for’ the rule against all th'.- diifeiid.intn’ counsel, r illiug Upon th. in Io pr id’;'- - it or r.now ca -• why they ..imtdu not b.- 1 pum. ic'l i n* con: 1 mpt. 'i Im abort is bis, Golr.-j-’s, < xpU i..d:oii of hi-> conduct in twating a rul .’, !i:*t h • '"X I*l t COiilpli»!!*t 1I i i ' i''9. i.. Liuwri. i GtoiH i . 'i iaf .i I Malt'd t?!r ! r‘<’t knntiK* t’> tht; petition without; lh<* knov.l* or ••'Hri Li. o£ the of Go*’x?r, at.-l Mr, ;/ v.;t> .81.(M) I’Eil \NNUM. ' name to tho petition for this rule and ' is parl.ici iminis in the infamous 1 ami "tit: .c ions effort of this judge Ito i.iiiir :md oppress t’rietnbi ri-; of tho • -.f (hi:, sl it' 1 and deseri c ■ and [ odd reerivr equal condemnation Gol'i-r is now receiving from all i ! I m l I iir-mmded men. li'Gobi r . n bom ’ awl -ictiu * from f ' jiis.p- r motives be would have : 'u-d ' rule a: ii'st Brown aud F. C. Tat'-, .! who v> -re opposing counsel in that . c. ■. His I’ailuixi to issue rules against ai tin iltorii'-v’t connected with tho ■ ndcinoii'.t rate.'i that he acted from improper motives, that ho was not di it-:,-i-e-.tw.lly toying to get, hold <■’£ til niqtioi; for Hew trial. This fellow jhsiwn-, th' .1, u •‘y Ntiifllru in tho » i-ni ■'.* ;»4 3 S •'VtsuJ Ml A vriuible tool in ding (lEbcr in his de.vili.sh work. ■ Brow n was willing to «igii tho clerk’s naino without authority to the peti tion and it was imperatively nccoß'a- . rv to cover up then - villainy by using file name of an innocent third party. > It would not do of course to disclose tlr-ir dirty scheme to Mr. Siminons, • he is an honest, honorable gentle in m and could not bo induced by Gob i- and Brown to engage in such dirty w n 1.. They, therefore, did not i ..ibu i 1 ii til im for his signature and > the pili , c; was not even sworn to. Iliis "J in Brown, acting as tho wiltihg tool of Gober, in drawing tho pelitinii for the rule, made the clerk s .'ay that “lli'i papers lu.d been de mur. L'd of us, th. f we refused to re , turn th 'in,” . !l of which tho clerk . . ! i. ■■■'• iLis committee is ab- ■ Ii: ly false. G-- i nd Brown knew that if i ?.!! • d the clerk to read tliut p. i timi h would repudiate Ms con iL- i I .re, they conspired to i ■ l" clerk’s name cl.llimintiiiely • I without hi. knowledge r.ndyon .'.i. ': i ii-.t difficult to sum up iim ;•<>' 'I whv this fellow Ih-own is l. I'.,i'i;.; ,-dmig as counsel and wit in' '. fur hi.l master. To convict Ji r ki " !;h the triggers from un d'.r htnrsell’. D ■ ic ~to ray nothing nfj>r<ip:-i- I'ty. W'lilri have sup'gestrd to * less ri'-. -iKT.it.o people that he reinam in the b u-kgroiind. Mr. Simmons, tho ■l.'ik, -.e irs “that he did not tnig- .1 i.r iiruii ;.it.o the rule, that ho !;i- l Gober to li t him write to uh I if v.e had tho papers,” tluM, ,l'. i' pli'-d, “No, he knew abetter .',1.1.1 1ii....” And yet ill the taco . . . id'll: .3. . I lu- 11-". ill." d I,- (.''ib' 1 ! himsidf, the Htii'l I Jr i-swore “that the rule was in rii'.i'd by the clerk. ': :i! r -.,’0r0 “that, if il. Find been !'.:i ■l im the rule would not have | 'iv u i. ued.” I A ain, to show that thin rule was i : I iii m ili ■'> born :m I conceived in no pi.-."li--r piiblnh'-d in tho A’L.. : ■ ( "iHti’-ition tho st iteninnl that ii. Lil. hi! Mr. Darnell’* re- II i.i|. .. id that Mr. Darnell had our i c.eipi am! endeavors to create a . i'.''. impo- ion tliat upon tbesc facts Im i a-.'l 11.-: i'll ■ .-./ain.:t us. Tho l■lr -t 5 . s.si! it is that tlu-iefncts ■' 11 ' the eh .!; had Darnell’s receipt ■ ui Darn-dl ours was not known to I| < cilicr imtil al’t'-r the rain had been ■' i: m-d. This '-ll’orl, to pervert tho [ liui!i is ' .i-iagh’to mviet him in the i i iiiids of .ill holiest m-’ii. I Tiii, vlli.rt to single out pfwt of i th : ixim-i'-I and to institute rules ' [ •• : -dn:-1 tli -iri, at the same time dis- ! ... itniiiii * liii favors to the other • ' ouiisel, is cq'i illy convincing vs his ; I ~-iiit. it hows, too, that it was not , ’ "■ intetiti'iu by that rule to recover Ith ip;. d I '.I papers. Gober is tii' • , lain on ir-.'i that had th J ■ ■ ■' ~l i l h:i-. ing th ■ p 'pin ) I: to 1,'.-- . . lost. Th'-ir production ■; wo’iid I -'.abli.sh forever the facts be i ci ! the lainlest ray of suspicion i ii' ll in- m-ltil <!<-d that 11 co'd, ami ' v compelled to is tore it as wo i A ’ N'iiij'-r Mr, Glenn nor my ’ -It mid b, en in l'u Is ns comity from ii tie- .ini- tin- ch ik had the moi ion for ■j new i . ' in 'n-tob-r, 1899, to Odo- ii -r, I '2. We met tlii, ; ■an Gober ■ i in L:- ... :i court and h-- presided in t'e <•. :hy Ind in.- iituted ag.nn.st us . liim-, 11 widi the willing .r-ristanee of m- puppe. Ihe leii w Bruw ii, and his .-■■, ■/ m. that rul lind, that we did m. any of the papers. 'l'lii.s ■ 'ig . .. at. Jasper, i'j tls.c Blue Hi 1 .w ehcuit, but Brown acted the traitor mid did not appear, he <Jji .sert,- . 1... lua.ster, Judas-like, and did I not coiiiif i<> tune. ! ■ v.ever, ooarded the train at ( ' it "i m the aftcrnoo.-i, a-g.ve were ri 'iirm. ami informed himself • o rial n.rough one J. Z. !’" vho .-. . apparently repre n- -.-al Bio--. :i and general J hus while hi., cour [ : . • i him Iris interest was at G-i: rs“tii itiilicli.idwant- ' --■■l to j i ii-li us he could have done it noon ' .I ".-..-I .-ihowiii/, tor it is a ' denied t!. i we took this recortk : • m th' ic-rk’.s office.” There is -. . cd rir ii u: this statement, , Ni-itm-.- .Mr. Gi -mi nor mvst-if e„ver 1 1 -., tin. i-ii i from the clerk’s. |)i i.- i: -at u.s the papers bv m .i, mid < -riitm.-aHy we bad 3 right li.Bi.i under Uie < • • ■ <<< rui'Kiu