Newspapers / The Monroe Journal (Monroe, … / July 11, 1917, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The Monroe Journal (Monroe, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
THE UNION COUNTY PAPER EVERYBODY READS IT. THE UNION COUNTY PAPER EVERYBODY NEEDS IT." : Monroe Journal PUBLISHED TUESDAYS AND FRIDAYS; VOL. 23. No. 44. MONROE, N. O, WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 1917. $1.50 PER YEAR CASH. THE mm The case against Mr. J. E. Efird, charged with assault and battery up on Prof. It. V. Allen with deadly weapon with intent to kill, came to an abrupt conclusion this afternoon at 4 o'clock, when the detendant, through his attorneys, agreed to sub mit to the charge of assault and bat tery with deadly weapon, pay a fine ot $250 and cost, and to pay to the injured man the sum of f 5,5o0. The defendant pays all of the costs con nected with the case. The compromise did not come as a surprise. All morning envoys were talking, and phoning, and at 2 o'clock this attrenoon, a meeting of the school board, and other prominent in a business and social way, met in the city hall and arranged the compro mise. Attorney Talker, in announcing to the court that the compromise uaa been affected, stated that the defen dant had desired this for days, but the State would not listen to it until this morning. The compromise was sought by the defendant, and cut by Prof. Allen. When Prof. Allen was approached upon the possibility of a compromise, Attorney Frank Armfield stated, he made it plain that, owing to the In terest of the public, be would not take the responsibility of sanctioning the proposal. However, he opened the way by leaving It up to his Echool board. The school board, and others, it was stated, agreed that it was for the best Interest of all concerned to ac cept the terms of the defendant. The school board is composed of the fol lowing genUemen: F. B. Ashcraft. T. P. Dillon, J. M. Belk, G. F. Hender son, J. E. Ashcraft, E. C. Carpenter and G. M. Beasley. Judge Pratt, in commenting on the compromise, brought forth applause from the hundreds packed in the court house when he stated that the case on trial emphasized the fact that It is against the interests of educa tion for patrons to attempt to run the schools to suit their own particular fancies. If this be allowed, he said, education would be a snare and a de lusion. Mr. R. L. Stevens, the Prosecuting Attorney, held the audience breath less for a few second when he arose to make a few remarks as the trial was growing to a close: "Your Hon or." he said, "as Prosecuting Attor ney, I thought it against the best in terests of the people to allow this caBe to be compromised, as the de fendant had wrecked grievious injury upon Prof. Allen. However, when I learned that Prof. Allen, who was the injured party, was willing to drop the proceedings on the grounds that have already been enumerated, I opposed it not longer." "This compromise," stated Judge Pratt, "takes a great burden off my shoulders. I have tried to view the case solely on its merits, but as I saw Prof. Allen, the man who had been grieviously injured, sitting over there I found it hard. Yet 1 have felt sympathy for the counsel of the defendant. The court room has been packed, for two days with hundreds of Prot. Allen's sympathizers. This may hife been a commendable act, yet it mty have been wrong. It was commendable if these ladies and chil dren came into the court as a mark of respect to Prof. Allen; but it was wrong If they came to see vengeance wrecked upon Mr. Eftrd. .. "If the case were to have been con cluded, and left to me, acting as both judge and jury, I would have made the fine much heavier. It Is also pos sible that I have considered some other form of punishment. Yet, as civil reparation has been made to Prof. Allen, I fell that the court can accept the compromise." Mr. Efird has suffered greatly, ac cording to Attorney Parker. "You people; in fact, none but those of us who have been intimately associated with him of late." he said, "can re alize how much he has suffered He regrets the deed, exceedingly so, and is willing to make reparation." There has never been a case heard in Monroe that has attracted so muc.i attention. Every seat in fhe court room has been filled for the past two days, and many Btood in the aisles, and around the bar. In truth, Tues day and today were not much more than a holiday, looking at it only from the standpoint of neglected business. Attorneys for both sides had been preparing to make big argumens. Word had got over the county that James H. Pou and E. T. Cansler, two of the best lawyers in the State, were going to fpenk this afternoon, and many people from all over the coun ty came Into town to hear the big guns. Local talent, also, was expect ed to outdo Itself on the case. Not wanting to disappoint the many who had come expressedly to hear Messrs. Pou and Cansler, the former was prevailed upon to make an address to the audience. He was Introduced, at the conclusion of the court, by It. B. Redwine, who spoke of him in happy phrases characteriz ing him as one of the biggest law yers in the State. The case was heard by Sub-Recorder W. J. Pratt. There was an Impos ing amy of counsel representing both sides. Assisting Frosecuting Attorney R- L. Stevens were James H. Pou of Raleigh, Frank Armfield. j. c. M. Vana and T. L. Caudle of Efird Pays $250 Fine and $5500 Damages CASE ENDED IfI COMPROMISE ' THIS AFTERNOON Prosecution Accepts Offer of Defendant and Judge Pratt and Attorney Stevens Accept Terms Many Witnesses Examined and Attorneys were Preparing for Heavy Argument. Wadesboro. J. J. Parker, W. B. Love, and E. T. Cansler of Charlotte ably represented the defendant. All throughout the trial there were constant objections to parts of the evHence from both sides, but Judge Pratt appeared to have conducted the case in a fair and impartial manner, as every ruling he made was accept ed in a satisfied manner by the side taking exception. At times the argu ment over these little technicalities of law almost reached the brilliant stage, but no anger was manifested by either side. The hearing was scheduled to start at 10 o'clock, but it was nearer 11 o'clock before the first witness took tie stand, as Recorder Lem niond was down stairs trying another case. Prof. Allen came into the court room before the court convened, and was greated with applause. The en trance of the lawyers for the State, a few minutes later, also provoked a like demonstration. When Record er Lemmond opened the case for trial application was filed with him for the removal of the case to the Sub-Recorder. Mr. Efird was originally arrested on a warrant charging him with as sault and battery with a deadly weapon, but was released under a $1000 bond for his appearance at Tuesday's hearing. There had been a great deal of talk to the effect that the warrant would be changed,- so when Mr. Armfield asked to be al lowed to amend it, charging the de fendant with assault and battery with intent to kill, it did not cause much surprise. Mr. Cansler, for the defense, objected, claiming that the amendment was not proper at this time, but Judge Pratt allowed it, in his discretion. Some time was consumed in ad ministering the oath to the numerous witnesses. me court nouse was so packed that Judge Pratt ordered Chief of Police Christenbury to clear the first row of benches for the wit nesses. As soon as this was done, both sides stated they were ready to proceed with the trial. lYof. Allen First Witness. Supported by his nurse and a couple of friends, Prof. Allen took the stand to render the first testi mony for the State. He testified, in part, as follows: "For several weeks prior to the af fray, I had been conducting a sum mer school at the Lancaster Avenue graded school. It was my custom to always be there by 8 o'clock in the morning, but on June 15, the day of the assault, I was a few minutes late starting for the school. I remember this very distinctly, as 1 had express ed the fear to my wife that I would be late. Walking hurriedly, I soon reached the corner of Lancaster Avenue and Crawford street. There I saw Mr. Efird approaching. Not having any Idea of what was in store for me, I occosted him with the usual salutation of 'Good Morning.' "Without returning my greeting, he stopped squarely in front of me, held up his left hand, and said: 'You go to my wife and tell her that you lied when you said she had been sending notes to your teachers.' I told him that I would not. 'G d n you,' he said, 'take that, and grabbing me by my left hand, be commenced cutting me. I warded off the knife thrusts the best I could, striking him with my fist several times. We scuffled until I fell off the sidewalk Into the ditch. He jump ed on me, again wielding his knife. Finally, I managed to crawl up on all fours, but he kicked me back Into the ditch. "When I got up, I started heme. The exertion, however, to weakened in e that I was obliged to turn. On doing so. I discovered Llndsey Helms. the school janitor, approacning. When he reached my side I request ed him to go for Dr. Stewart, which he did." Armfield Interrupted Prof. Allen at this point, and asked If Ernest Kraus3 was near the scene. He re plied: "Ye. While I was lying In the ditch. Ernest Krauss and Mi"1 Amelia Krauts were standing nearby implor ing Mr. Efird to dist in hi attack. I heard Ernest krauss st-y: "Stop, uncle, you're killing him!'" Prof. Alien told how he went Into Mr. Dundy's residence and secured modiral aid. His testimony about this part of thP occurrence was about like Llndsey Helms, the school jani tor, stated to The Journal on the day of the affair, and which was publish ed several weeks aro. ' Armfield questioned Prof. Alien, further: I receive the first cut. A. On the left cheek. Q. When did you receive the wounds on your head? A. When I was dova !:i the ditch! Q. How long have yiu been coo fined? A. Today is the first time I have been out of the house. .' Q. Can you remove the bandage, and show the court the scars? A. Yes. (Here Prof. Allen, wit the assistance of his nurse, removed the bandages, exposing a long scar on both of his cheeks, and a small one across his lower lip, and anoth er one on his neck). Q. How many wounds did ycu re ceive in all? A. Twelve. Q. What effect did those wounds have on your senses? A. I can't see to read; I hear all right, but can't open my mouth very wide. The lower lip seems to be dead. It does not seem to be sensi tive to heat. Q. When you take liquids, how does that affect you? A. It runs out my mouth with out my knowledge. The State turned Prof. Allen over to the defense for examination, but it passed him up without asking a single question. Testimony of Young Lee Boy. Clarence Lee, the eixteen yearcld son of J. H. Lee, took the stand. Armfield continued the examina tion for the State. Q. You were in school at the time this affair occurred? A. Yes. Q. 15? A. Q. A. nue. . A. Did you see Mr. Efird on June Yes. Where? Walking down Lancaster Ave- Whlch direction? Down the street. Q You rang the bell that morn-' ing, I believe. Where was Mr. Efird j when you went into the building to ring it? A. Standing near Mr. Krauss. The w itness was turned over to the defense, and Attorney Cansler cross examined him as follows: Q. What time were you at the school building that morning? A. At 7:30. Q. A. Q. body? A. What were you doing? I was sitting on the steps. Were you waiting for any- Yes, for Mr. Allen. You saw Mr. Efird go tcward" Q. Mr. Hinson's? A. Yes. Q. Was there anything about Mr. Efird to attract attention? A. No. Q. Yet you noticed him pass? A. Yes. Heard Mr. Efird Attack School. Mr. W. B. Brown, a member of the Gordon Insurance & Investment Co.. was the next witness presented by the State. He testified that he heard Mr. Efird state that Mr. Allen had (old a lie. In part, his testimony was as follows: "Several weeks prior to the affray, I passed the English Drug corner, and heard Mr. Efird. who was talking to Mr. Ike Dlair and . Mr. Clifford Fowler, state that Mr. Allen had lied In the case of the! Krauss boys. (This was a case heard i tome months ago, in which Messrs. Ray and Karl Krauss were charged , with assaulting Prof. O. V. Hamrick. : the school principal.) I took Issue with Mr. Efird on this statement, tell- j ing that I would be careful about making such remarks unless I could prove them. Mr. Efird replied that the record would substantiate his statement. The defense, when Mr. Brown was handed over to them, failed to im peach his testimony. Attorney Cans ler cross-examined him, as follows: Q. Mr. Efird Is an uncle of the Krauss boys by marriage? A. Yes. Q. In the conversation you and Mr. Efird waxed warm? A. Yes. Q. Did anybody else make any ie mark3? A. No. Q. When Mr. Efird grew warrv he made the remarks about Trof. Al len? A. No. The remark he mr.do started the conversation. ltlalr Corroborate Brown. Ike Blair, who was presmt when j the Ttbove alleged conversation tooK place, corroborated Brown In Bluest every detail. His testimony varied slightly from that of his predecessor, but it was essentially the same. He Q. Where did ycu declared that Eiird bad stated that the school was under ti e sorriest management it h;.d had since he came tc Monroe, and that he went on fur ther to state that Prof. Allen had sworn a lie in the Krauss boy's case. The State turned Mr. Blair over to the defense, and he was cross-examined by Cansler. Q. V:un did that conversation occur? A. Two cr throe weeks prior to the fight. Q. What day cf the week? A. I do net know. Q. It might have been further back? A. I do net think so. Q. Both Brown and Efird became heated in the conversation, did they not? A. Yes. Q. And Efird said Allen swore a lie? A. Yes. Q. Were they not mad when this statement was made? A. No. They took issue over this statement. They became heated as the conversation dragged on. Q. How long before this had the Krauss trial, of which Efird spoke, taken place. A. About a year. Testimony of Physician. Dr. H. D. Stewart, who was the first doctor to reach Prof. Allen's tide after he bi.d been wounded, was called to the stand. Armfield ex amined him for the State. Q. When did you arrive on the scene? A. A little Moigan girl ran Into my house and said to me: 'Come out. Mr. Efird is killing a man.' I ran out, getting there just in time to see Prof. Alltn stumbling along the side walk. Q. You dressed his wounds. A. 1 helped to do it. Q. State the seriousness of the wounds. A. The most serious wound is on the right cheek. The most danger ous wound is on his throat. Q. How near the jugular vein was that on his throat? A. About 1-4 of an Inch. Q. Were the scars bigger then than they are now? A. Yes. They have healed con siderably. Q. Will the scars always remain? A. Yes, tc some extent. Q. What tfJect will the scars have on the senses? A. The Fears, none; but the cut across the muscles may have some effect on the rpeech. Q. Did the wound in the cheek affect the teeth? A. I don't know; I do not think so. Q. Describe wounds on the back. A. Tbey were not of a serious na ture; were weie not even required to sew them up. The wounds over the shoulder and on the back of the head required several stitches. Q. What kind of instrument caused the wounds? A. A sharp Instrument. Q. How many stitches were re quired to sew up the wounds? A. I did not count them. Dr. Ashcraft said about 64 were lequir- ed. Dr. Stewart then proceeded to tell about how he had the wounded man rarried into Mr. Dundy's residence. He said Prof. Allei was bleeding pro fusely. Happily, Mrs. Dundy had some absorbent cotton in the house. I secured some of ;t, and managed to stop the flow of blood to ome ex tent. Prof. Allen, wnile stanJing on the porch, complained that he was about to faint. We made him a palate on the floor, and laid him down. Armfield continued the examina tion: Q. What became of Efird? A. I do not know. I saw some one get into an automobile. Q. Would Prof. Allen, owing to the nature of hi.- wounds, have bled to death if he had not secured medi cal assistance when he did? A. Yfs. I think so. The State turned Dr. Stewart over to the defense. Cansler cross-examined him in part, a? follows: Q. If he hnd only born wounded on the chek. he would have bled to death without attention, would he not? A. Yes. Q. Stars, like wounds on a tree. will be wiped out by time, will they not? A. Yes, to a certain extent. Q. Year by year? A. Yes, for a certain length of time. At the conclusion of Dr. Stewart's cross-examination, the Sta'e announc ed that it would rest. .Miss Kraiif-s First Winess For the Defense. Miss Amelia Krauss, a sister-in- law of the defendant, was the first witness offered by the defense. Her testimony, on examination by Mr. Parker, was in part, as follows: Q. You are a sister-in-law of the defendant? A. Yes. Q. Where were you at the time the affair occured? A. At borne. Q. The difficulty accuried in front of your mother's home? A. Yes. Q. Tell the court about the diffi culty, or rather, what you saw. A. I was going to the front from the rear end of the house. I saw two men scuffling. I recognized Mr. Al len first; then Mr. Efird. 1 said: Men, don't do that." Q. Did you see them on the ground? A. Yes after yiey fell. Q. How far were you from them? A. About 15 steps. Q. While the two weie on the ground, did Mr. Efird cut Mr. Allen? A. No. Q. After they got up, what did Mr. Efird do? A. He went up the street a short distance, and picked up a hat and a knife. Q. How far from the scene? A. Just a few steps. Q. What did he do then? A. He told me he was going for a doctor. Q. Did you see Ernest Krauss? A. Yes. He came across the walk while they were fighting. Q. Did he say anything? A. No. The defense turned Miss Krauss over to the State. She was cross-examined in part by Mr. Vann, as fol lows: Q. Did you see- any blows ex changed? A. I did not. Q. You saw blood? A. Yes. 1 saw blood on both of them. Q. Did you see Ernest Krauss at tempt to pull Mr. Efird off Mr. Al len? A. I saw hiin reach for Mr. Efird. Q. After Ernest did that, Mr. Al len got up. A. Yes. Q. Did Mr. Efird then kick him? A. He gave him a little shove. Mr. Parker for the defense, ques tioned Miss Krauss further after the conclusion of the State's cross-examination, as follows: Q. Did you see Mr. Efird that day after the fight? A. Yes. Q. Was he bruised up? A. Yes. His face was bruised; his eye blackened, and his lip swol len. Q. Did Mr. Efird make unv com plaint? A. No. He didn't complain. He took It very oolmly. He was unable to talk very clearly. Q. How long did the bruises re main? A. I saw thrni very prominently on the sixth day afterwards. Testimony of Ernest Kijiiikm.' Ernest Krauss, a nephew of Mr. Efird's, followed Miss Krauss on the stand for the defense. On examina tion by Mr. Love, he testified. In part, as follows: Q. You are a nephew of Mr. Efird's? A. Yes. Q. Where were you when the dif ficulty occurred? A. At home. Q. What time. A. About a quarter past eight. Asked by Mr. Love to tell about what he saw, young Krauss stated: "1 was on the back porch prepar ing to bathe my feet, v. '. en I heard a noise. Looking out on the street. I saw fists flying. At first I thought it was a couple of boys fighting, but later discovered that it was Mr. Kfire and Mr. Allen. I saw a hand come up and strike Mr. Allen in the head with a knife. They wreMled. and both fell. Neither was on top of tho other. I reached the spot where thoy were sruffling at this time." Q. Did you see any blows pass ed? A. No. Q. What happened next? A. I saw Mr. Efird shove Mr. Al len back to the ground, and kick hi Q. Did you see Mr. Efird pick up a knife? A. Yes. EXTMS Q. What did you do then? A. I called up the dn:? store la an effort to j:ct a doctor. Young Krauss was turtin over to the State. Mr. AriiitieM cross-ex amined, him in part, as ' Q. You didn't see th A. No. l. Can you say w!: Mr. Allen had been low. nows: V winning? " v or not Ware? A. No. Q. You didn't recugr.lz-' :h knife Mr. Efird nicked up as t! ne he had in his hand? A. No. Q. You pulled Mr. E:d off Mr. Allen? A. Just touched him on the shoul der. Q. You then jumped ever the hedge? A. No. I went through the gate. Q. Did Mr. Efird follow you? A. He did for a short distance. Q. You went for a doctor? A. Yes. Q. Where was Miss Krauss? A. About fifteen steps away. Q. Did Mr. Efird kick Mr. Allea once or twice? t A. Only once. Saw Mr. F.tird That Morning. Miss Maggie York Houston testi fied to having seen Mr. Efird on the morning of the affray coming down the Griffith road. She did not know how long it was before the fight that she saw him, but knew that it was before as Fhe learned about the as sault after reaching town. Mr. Efird was in front of Mr. Steve Morgan. home when she saw him walking in the direction of town. She did not notice anything unusual in his de meanor. The State, after the defense had completed its examination, pass ed Miss Houston up. Defendant Had Business on Street. Earl Hlnson, the 18-year-old son of Mr. and Mrs. H. J. Hinson, proved to be an important witness for the defense. He testified that Mr. Efird had been to his father's home on the morning of the assault to see his. mother about an inscription to go on her mother's tombstone, which the defendant was building. On exami nation by Mr. Love, he stated in part, as follows: Q. What time was it when Mr. Efird came to your house? A. A short while before 8 o'clock. Q. What was he doing? A. He came to see about a tomb stone that my mother was having built for my grandmother's grave. Q. How long did he stay? A. About five or ten minutes. Q. Where did he go? A. Over by Mr. Morgan's. (Mr. Morgan lives across the street from Mr. Hinson's. Mr. Hinson's residence faces on the same street on which the assault occurred.) Q. He has a corn patch in front of your house? A. Yes. Q. He crossed the road in front of your house? A. Yes. Mr. Hinson, alter examination by the defense, was cross-examined by Mr. Armfield for the State, in part. as follows: Q. Was that the first time you saw Mr. Efird? A. Yes. Q. He had been at your house be fore? A. Not that I know of. Q. How long has your grand mother been dead? A. She died jn March. Mr. Holme Also Saw Defendant. B. H. Holmes, a Western Union lineman, w ho lives on the Griffith road, testified to having seen Mr. Efird a short while prior to the as sault. He stated that Mr. Efird had a corn patch near his (Holmes) home. They had a short conversa tion, he stated, over thia patch, the witness asking the defendant if he objected to his letting his chickens out into the field, as the corn had passed the stage where It could be damaged by them. The State passed Mr. Holmes up without cross-examin- ng him. Defendant's Wife Takes Stand. Mrs. J. E. Efird took the stand It behalf of her husband. Mr. Cansler. for the defense, examined her, in part, as follows: Q You are defendant's wife. A. Yes. How long have you been mar- Q. ried! A. Q. A. About 24 years. Where did you first live? In Norwood. We lived there only about 2 months, however. Q. Then where? A. In Albemarle. Q. How long did you stay there?" A. About a year and a half. We later moved back to Albemarle from Monroe and lived there 4 1-2-years longer. A. Had you a conversation witfi your husband a few days prior to the difficulty? A. Yes. Q. How Irng before? A. On Wednesday before. y. When did you have this con versation ? . At the dinner table artnr thv children hud left. Q. Toll about the conversation. A. I tcltl him about Miss Bell and myself goinjr to see Prof. Allen about my bov. Hall. Mr Al len did not soem to want to see us, stating that he was very bur. We unauy persuanea him. however, tov (.Continued oa Fage Iwo.j,
The Monroe Journal (Monroe, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
July 11, 1917, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75