Buncombe County NcArchives Court.....Wm. H. Hall, State V. 1875
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Connie Ardrey n/a October 31, 2011, 5:59 pm

Source: N C Reports
Written: 1875

State v. Wm. H. Hall

The removal of a criminal case from one county to another, upon the affidavit 
of the prisoner, lies within the discretion of the presiding Judge of the 
Court below; from the exercise of which discretion no appeal will generally 
lie.

Indictment, murder, tried at the Spring Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of 
Buncombe County, before his Honor, Judge Henry.

The following is the statement of the case made up and certified by his Honor, 
the Judge presiding.

The defendant, with his wife, Clara Hall, were indicted for the murder of A. 
J. Gillespie, their step father-in-law; the indictment being found at Fall 
Term, 1874, and on the motion of the prisoner, continued to Spring Term, 1875. 
At said term, on the motion of the prisoner's counsel, there was a severance, 
and separate trials ordered.

The prisoner, Wm. H. Hall, being upon trial, filed an affidavit for the 
removal of his case; and moved the Court to order the same. His Honor refused 
the motion. He then filed an affidavit for continuance, on account of the 
absence of a material witness, one Merritt Plemons. His Honor refused to 
continue, but upon the affidavit ordered a capias ad testificandum to issue 
for the witness, Plemons, who was subsequently brought into Court, but whom 
the prisoner declined to examine.

The evidence was circumstantial. The deceased being shot down at his door, in 
the night time, from the garden fence. There was much testimony offered 
showing threats, motives, tracks, hidden gun, ammunition, confessions, &c., 
many witnesses being introduced and examined. At the beginning of the trial, 
at the suggestion of prisoner's counsel, the witnesses were ordered out of the 
Court room, and separated from those being examined, and not to appear until 
called.

For the State, J. M. Alexander was examined in the course of the trial, was 
cross-examined and ordered to stand aside. Subsequently he was recalled by the 
State, to prove some fact overlooked in his first examination. After stating, 
that since his first examination in chief, he had been in the court room a few 
minutes only, his Honor allowed the examination to proceed. To this the 
prisoner objected, and excepted.

In the course of the argument, the prisoner's counsel read an old and a long 
case in the notes to Phillips' Evidence, vol. 3, an anonymous case of 1672, 
taken from the Gentleman's Magazine, 1762, and which details the facts 
purporting to be the evidence in the case of a person, who was arraigned in 
the reign of Queen Elizabeth for the murder of a man, &c., to the jury. The 
Court asked the counsel what was the object of reading that case to the jury? 
Counsel, in a blunt manner, replied, to comment on. His Honor then asked if he 
designed reading any more cases like that? The reply was, he did. There being 
no objection, the counsel proceeded.

When the argument was closed, the counsel for the prisoner handed to the Court 
the following instructions, to be read to the jury, viz:

1. If any of the established circumstances be wholly repugnant to the 
hypothesis of the State, the jury cannot convict, notwithstanding the degree 
and extent of the circumstances in other respects.

2. That circumstantial proof is not of a conclusive nature in respect to the 
hypothesis proposed, unless it also excludes every other inconsistent 
hypothesis; and when the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt as to which of 
several hypothesis is true, or merely establishes some probability in favor of 
our hypothesis, rather than another, such evidence cannot amount to proof, 
however great the probability might be.

3. It is essential that the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, 
actually exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.

After stating the testimony, as delivered to the jury, his Honor asked the 
counsel to "please read the instructions praying for, (the writing being 
unintelligible,) and his Honor said: I can't read your handwriting well." The 
counsel did so, when the Court charged the law to be as stated, &c. In the 
charge, and in the comments on the law, his Honor charged, that the reading of 
the facts in circumstantial cases, was hardly proper, but not being objected 
to was permitted; that is was calculated to lead the minds of the jury away 
from the issues and facts of the particular case before them; that they (those 
read) were only the recitation of facts appearing in other cases, and in which 
mistakes had been made, and the only service that they could be to the jury, 
was to make them more careful to give the prisoner the benefit of any 
reasonable doubt; and the more cautious to see that the prisoner was not 
unjustly convicted. That the facts recited had nothing to do with the 
testimony deposed to in this case; that each and every case must be decided on 
its own merits, and according to the evidence, and that without any reference 
to the mistakes made in other cases. That life was full of error, and every 
thing human was liable to mistakes; and that the most correct thing we could 
do, was to act as best as we could under the circumstances, having due and 
conscientious regard to the position we occupy, and the oath we had taken; and 
that after giving the prisoner the benefit of the reasonable doubt, and after 
a fair and a just consideration of all the circumstances, if they were fully 
satisfied, that he had killed Gillespie in a way and manner stated, it was 
their duty to bring in a verdict of "guilty."

Further, his Honor stated that the trial having occupied a long time, (five 
days,) he would for the benefit of the jury, sum up the testimony as 
delivered, and lay before them the theories and arguments of both sides - of 
the State and of the prisoners.

This his Honor proceeded to do, and asked, after getting through, if any thing 
had been overlooked, or not sufficiently and intelligibly stated. The counsel 
for the prisoner suggested that the line of argument in the prisoner's behalf 
had not been so stated as to give him the full benefit of its reasoning and 
effect of the evidence, &c., and suggesting other propositions and arguments 
used by the defence; the same was fully recited by the Court and commented on. 
Again, his Honor asking if any thing, for or against the prisoner, had been 
overlooked in the charge of the Court, and both the State and the prisoner 
repling that there was not, submitted the case to the jury, again impressing 
upon them, the right of the prisoner to all reasonable doubts as to his guilt, 
&c.

The jury found a verdict of guilty. Motion for a new trial. Motion overruled. 
Judgment and appeal by the prisoner.

Busbee & Busbee & McCloud, for the prisoner
Attorney General Hargrove and Collins, for the State

NC Supreme Court Justice Reade, J. - The only point made for the prisoner at 
this bar, was, whether his Honor below ought to have removed the case upon the 
affidavit filed. There is no error in the record. Let this be certified 
together with this opinion, to the end that there may be judgment and 
execution according to law. (see court case for judge's full ruling)

Per Curiam
Judgment affirmed

Additional Comments:
In the NC Supreme Court June Term 1875

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/buncombe/court/wmhhall2961wl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.poppet.org/ncfiles/

File size: 7.7 Kb