A Kentucky Trial.
The New York Herald contains a graphic account of a series of “ scenes ” at atrial at Nieholasville, Kentucky, of a man named Arnold for shooting his brother-in-law, named Little. The men’s wives were sisters, and, upon the death of the father, the husbands had a conference about the division of the property, which was considerable. The prosecution charged that Arnold exhibited a forged promissory note of the dead man in his favor, which he insisted should be paid as a first charge. Little denounced the document as a forgery; a quarrel ensued, and Arnpld shot Little dead. The shooting was not denied, but there was much heated controversy between the lawyers as to whether the note had been produced at all, and, assuming it to have been produced, whether it was a forgery. The State Attorney, summing up for the prosecution, declared that Arnold was a forger. The statement was flatly contradicted by counsel for the defence, and one of the audience shouted out with an oath, “ It’s a lie.” A brother of the prisoner cocked a revolver, jumped over the dividing-railing, and rushed at the State Attorney. Instantly several persons whipped out revolvers, and “ matters began to look serious.” Mrs. Arnold rushed forward to defend her husband, several ladies fainted, and men jumped out through the windows. At length the Court was cleared. The jury deliberated some hours, and acquitted the prisoner. The verdict was delivered “ amid intense excitement,” and was received with shouts. When the despatch left Nieholasville a crowd of several hundred persons was surrounding the Courthouse, and “ great uneasiness was felt as to the safety of Arnold.” The State Attorney was denouncing the verdict as a crowning stroke of infamy.”
Permanent link to this item
A Kentucky Trial., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 2, Issue 219, 17 December 1880
A Kentucky Trial. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 2, Issue 219, 17 December 1880
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.