xt7s7h1dk576 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7s7h1dk576/data/mets.xml Stone, Henry Lane, 1842- 1881 books b92-161-29919543 English Printed at the Roundabout Office, : Frankfort, Ky. : Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Green, Thomas Marshall, 1837-1904 Trials, litigation, etc. Hargis, Thomas Frazier, 1842-1903 Trials, litigation, etc. Trials (Libel) United States. Argument of Hon. Henry L. Stone of Mt. Sterling, Ky. : delivered May 20th, 21st, and 24th, 1880, before the jury in the Jefferson Court of Common Pleas, at Louisville, in behalf of the defendant on the trial of the celebrated libel suit of Thomas M. Green vs. Thomas F. Hargis / reported by Charles A. Graham ; with an appendix containing the pleadings, instructions, verdict, judgment, executions, officer's returns thereon, and sketches of the jurors. text Argument of Hon. Henry L. Stone of Mt. Sterling, Ky. : delivered May 20th, 21st, and 24th, 1880, before the jury in the Jefferson Court of Common Pleas, at Louisville, in behalf of the defendant on the trial of the celebrated libel suit of Thomas M. Green vs. Thomas F. Hargis / reported by Charles A. Graham ; with an appendix containing the pleadings, instructions, verdict, judgment, executions, officer's returns thereon, and sketches of the jurors. 1881 2002 true xt7s7h1dk576 section xt7s7h1dk576 ARGUMENT OF HON. HENRY L. STONE. OF MT. STERLING, KY., DELIVERED MAY 20TH, 21ST, AND 24Th1, 1880, BEFORE THE JURY IN THE JEFFERSON COURT OF COMMON PL.EAS, AT LOUISVILLE, IN BEHALF OF THE DEFEND- ANT, ON THE TRIAL OF THE CEI.E- BRATED LIBEL SUIT OF THOMAS M. GREEN VS. THOMAS i. HARGIS (Reported by Charles A. Graham, Official Stenographer), WITH AN APPENDIX CONTAINING THE PLEADINGS, INSTRUCTIONS, VERD[CT. JUDGMENT, EXECUTIONS, OFFICER'S RETUjRNS THEREON, AND SKETCHES OF THE JURORS. FRANKFORT, KY.: PRINTED AT THE ROUANDABOUT OFFICE, GEORGE A. LEWIS, i88i. A R G U M RE NT -OFF- HON. HENRY L. STONE, DELAVERED BEFORE THE JURY MAY 20TH, 21ST, AND 24TH, i88o, m BEHALF OF TRlE DEFENDANT, AT LOUISVILLE, ON THE TRIAL OF THE GREAT LIBEL SUIT OF R z3qi2 vs A tCZSt'. May it Please the Couzrt: Gentlemen of t/e Jes: I must compliment you for the patience you have shown in the progress of this long and laborious trial. I regret that it becomes my duty to still -further tax your patience. You have doubtless already discovered that an excellent opportunity is afforded plaintiff's counsel, in the discussion of this case, to vent their malice against Judge Hargis. You have just had an example of that character in the speech of Mr. Larewv, the gentleman.who last addressed you in plaintiff's behalf. I shall have occasion, as I proceed, to refer to some of his remarks, and the points he attempted to make upon the testimony. Before entering into the discussion of the evidence bearing on the main issues, I desire to call your attention to some of the events which immediately preceded the institution of this suit.' From the record we learn that on the 26th day of March, 1879, Hon. John M. Elliott, one of the Judges of the Court of Appeals of Ken- tucky, was shot down in the streets of Frankfort by an assassin. His tragic death sent a thrill of horror throughout the Commonwealth. His life was taken for no imaginable cause other than his faithful discharge of official duty in rendering a decision adverse to his slayer. Wherever known, Judge Elliott was beloved. In his death his wife lost an affec- tionate husband, and his State a pure and upright Judge. Thirty days afterwards the defendant, Hon. Thomas F. Hargis, then Judge of the Criminal Court in the Fourteenth Judicial District, was nom- inated at Owingsville to fill the vacancy on the appellate bench, by the accredited delegates of the Democratic party, from the forty counties composing the First Appellate District. On the 12th day of May fol- lowing, at the special election held under the Governor's proclamation, the defendant was elected over his opponent, Hon. William H. Holt, a popular and talented Republican lawyer of Mt. Sterling, by a majority of 3,555 votes. On the 4th day of June, having received his commis- sion, he was duly qualified as the successor of the lamented Elliott, and entered upon the arduous labors of his high office. But what had occurred in the meantime The defendant, thus chosen, elected, and qualified as one of the supreme judicial officers ARGUMENT 0FI HON. HENRY L. STONE. of -the State, had been attacked by the plaintiff, Thomas M. Greenf, through the public press, with a recklessness and desperation perfectly amazing to all fair-minded people. Once more a Judge of the Court of Appeals was sought to be stricken down. This time, however, the assault is not upon his life; but upon that which is far more sacred- his character. The weapon used is not the knife or the shot-gun of the assassin; but the poisonous and more deadly pen of the calumniator. As early as Monday, the 28th of April, 1879, but two days after the nomination of Judge Hargis for Appellate Judge, W. B. F. Clift, of Mason county, held a conversation with judge Andrews, at his office in Flemingsburg, upon the propriety of reviving the charges that had been made against Judge Hargis in 1874. Judge Andrews repudiated such a course, to his honor be it said, but in that conversation Mr. Clift tells Judge Andrews he had learned from Mr. Green it was his purpose to again revive these charges against defendant. On the 5th of May, the plaintiff, having been in the city of Louisville, arriving at Maysville on the night of the 4th, is met in the street by one Mr. Hutchins, and there occurs the beginning of the revival of these charges in the year 1879, Mr. Green does not take Mr. Hutchins' proposition, he does not base his action upon what Mr. Hutchins says to him, but shortly afterwards, on the same day, Mr. Wadsworth, the leading counsel for the plaintiff' in this action, sees Mr. Green. A similar interview to that with Mr, Hutchins takes place between them upon the subject of these charges. Mr. Green says to Mr. Wadsworth: "I can take no action in this. matter upon verbal statements. I am willing to act upon information given to me by responsible men, but that information, and that basis. upon which I propose to act, must be put down in black and white, So Mr. Green himself testified. Now what interest in this matter had Mr. Wadsworth Why didn't he leave it as it was But instead of that we learn from the testimony of Mr. Green himself that Mr. Wadsworth, later in the day, came to him.with a letter which forms the text and basis of the article of the 7th of May, i879, written out in full with his name signed to it. For what For the purpose, I am authorized to say, of giving Mr. Green an excuse to revive these charges against the defendant. That letter is as follows: MAYsvII.LK, May 5, i179. THOS. M. GREEN: My Dear Sir:-I have heard for some time that the statement was in circulation that you had changed your opinion, heretofore often and plainly expressed, of the charge against Thos. F. Ilargis, of mutilating the records of the Courts of Rowan county. I now learn from Col. R. H. Stanton, that when he was in Clark county, recently, a gentleman there asked him if you hadn't taken it all back, and if Taber hadn't confessed that he did the crime, at the same time telling him it was freely so reported in Clark, Mr. W. B. F Clift, of this county, also says it is so reported about Mason county. It is right that you should know this, explicitly. Very truly yours W. H.WADSWORTH. We thus see from the record, and from the lips of the plaintiff him- self, the manner in which this controversy was revived in the month of May, i879, at the instigation of his leading counsel. Not a candidate against Judge Hargis, not personally interested in the contest for Appellate Judge, for some unexplained reason Mr. Wadsworth takes it upon himself to write this letter, to afford Mr. Green a pretext for reviv- ing this controversy. 2 ARGUMENT OF HON. HENRY L. STONE. The gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Larew) would have you believe that he is the most disinterested gentleman imaginable; that for the mere supposed good of the Commonwealth and his love of jus- tice, he is here to-day to prosecute the defendant. Were I to inform you, gentlemen of the jury, that Mr. Larew was in the Owingsville Convention as a delegate from the county of Mason; that he was one of the Committee on Resolutions which reported that they had confi- dence in the integrity and qualifications of all the candidates before the Convention, and that whoever obtained its nomination should receive the cordial support of the entire Democracy of the District, and that he was then present in making that nomination, you would doubtless be astonished. We learn, further, from the testimony of Mr. Green, that Mr. Larew, on the night of the 5th of May, 1879, was the amanu- ensis- of Mr. Green in the revival of these charges, copying his two letters, afterwards published in the Cincinnati Contmercial, dated the 5th and 6th of May. Yet, he comes before this jury and tells you he is the most disinterested man in the world, and that he has said nothing in malice against the defendant. Of course he has none of the motley jingling in his pockets which has come out of the bank of Pearce, Wallingford Co., and he is here prosecuting this case without fee or reward. We thus see, from the evidence, gentlemen of the jury, that this controversy was revived in the town of Maysville upon a letter written by Mr. Wadsworth, whose law office was about fifty yards from the Eagle office, the plaintiff's printing establishment. It will strike you as something remarkable that one gentleman residing in the same town with another shou!d write a letter of the character of the one which has been read of the 7th of May, 1879-the letter which heads the arti- cle of that date. Mr. Green says that of that issue of his paper he got off three thousand three hundred extra copies, and of the articles pub- lished in the Cincinznati Commrcial there were some four thousand extra copies printed. They were received by Mr. Green or his agents for the purpose of being circulated against the defendant the week before the special election of the I2th of May, 1879. They were sent by ex- press, by mail, and special messengers, all over the accessible parts of the District As to who paid for those extra copies, and at whose expense they were distributed, we called upon the plaintiff to testify. The moment we struck that point the gentleman representing him objected. Judge Hargis was traveling in company with Mr. Holt, his competitor, up in the Sandy Valley, one hundred and fifty miles away, with no time or opportunity afforded him to meet these charges or counteract their baneful effects before the election, while these gentle- men in Maysville were getting off these extras and circulating them by thousands among the people, in remote counties where he had no pos- sible chance to contradict them previous to the election. These gen- tlemen who acted as the amanuenses of the plaintiff in getting up those articles for publication, now have the hardihood to come before an hon- est jury of Jefferson county and say that they have said nothing in malice, and are as innocent as doves in this whole transaction. Not stopping, however, with what had already been done, chagrined at the fact that Judge Hargis was elected, this infamous warfare upon him is kept up after the election under the pretense of correcting mis- statements of the public press. Article after article is written to the 3 ARGUMENT OF HON. HENRY L. STONE, Paris Trite Kentuckian, the. Lexington Ga-ette, the Richmond Regis/er, the Kentucky Sentinel, and the Courier-Journal. On th7 i i th of June, 1879, the defendant, out of respect for that portion of the people of Kentucky who were not acquainted with the author of these charges against him, or familiar 'vith its origin, wrote an article to the Cowier- JoIrnal, in which he denounced the charges as false, and those who had theretofore circulated them, and those who might thereafter do so, as willful caluminators; and upon that article the plaintiff brought this action for libel, on the i8th day of June, in the Jefferson Court of Common Pleas, claiming damages in the sum of ten thousand dollars. Mr. Green, after the appellate election, had gone about over the State wherever he could obtain a listening ear, upon the street, in the office, in the store-everywhere his tongue and pen were busy upon the repu- tation of the defendant. Here and there a bar meeting was instigated. Prejudices were engendered against the defendant in the minds of the people, and especially among the legal profession. Here in the city of Louisville, justly regarded as the center of legal knowledge in Ken- tucky, the plaintiff was at work with an object perfectly apparent to my mind. He and his friends in this city were then preparing the soil where they expected to pitch their crop. Many of the legal profession, and especially the younger members, were prejudiced against the defendant by the ex parte statements of Mr. Green. In answer to this suit Judge Hargis pleads that he wvas justifiable in denouncing these charges as false, and that the plaintiff is, in fact, a -willful caluminator. What constitutes a willful calumniator, gentlemen A T-an who writes and publishes a charge of an infamous 'character against another, which turns out to be false, is in law a' calumniator. When through the the same journal or channel of publication the party accused denounces the charge, and characterizes the author as a willful calumniator, the author cannot sue the accused in an action for libel and recover damages unless he makes out the truth of his charge; and even then it is doubtful vhether he would have a legal cause of action. If a man could with impunity utter and publish in the n ewspapers, a charge which was false against another, and then turn around and say by way of defense -that he did not know that the charge was false when lie made it, thus trying to escape the consequences of his own wrongful act, no man's reputa- tion would be safe in the community. But the law says he must abide the consequences of his charge whether he knew it or not to be true. He must know that it is true before he makes it. If he makes it and it should turn out to be false, he does it at his peril. But we find counsel representing the plaintiff in this case sta'uggling before this Court two or three days for what Virtually acknowledging that they have made a failure in this prosecution, that they have been unable to satisfy a reasonable jury of the guilt of the defendant in 'this case, yet asking the Court to instruct the jury that if the plaintiff did not knovw his charge was false that he still has the right to recover dam- ages from the man he has denounced in the face of the public who calls him a willful calumniator, thereby endeavoring to crawl out of the main' issue involved in this case, to escape its consequences and recover a ver- dict for damages upon the ground of the plaintiff's want of knowledge. But, gentlemen of the jury, you know from the instructions of the Court, such pretended law was not given for your consideration, and your verdict must turn, in this case, upon the guilt or innocence of the 4 ARGUMENT OF HON. HENRY L. STONE. defendant, Judge Hargis, on the charge of mutilating the Rowan county records. Unless he is shown to be guilty of that crime, there is no instruction upon which you can base-a verdict for the plaintiff. In other words, if the defendant is innocent of these charges, it is your duty to so find, and you cannot go further, upon any instruction, and find a ver- dict for damages for the plaintiff. On that point alone does your ver- dict turn. In the decision of that question the defendant has involved all that is near and dear to him. Not so with the plaintiff in this case. He has not the same great interests at stake. He has, in a measure, gained all that he set out for, let the result be as it may-that is, noto- riety, and the gratification of his unbounded malice towards Judge Har- gis. To quote his own language, in the Lexington Gazette: " If what I have stated is not true, even though believing it to be true, if I have made such serious charges upon insufficient testimony, then I have been guilty of a grave offense against the good of society, and the dig- nity of the Commonwealth,. and ought to be severelv punished for it. If Judge Hargi- be innocent, my offense is not that of a mere libeller of individual character, but if I have gone deliberately to work to utter and publish falsehoods, the effect of which, until they may be put down by jutdicial investigation, will be to destroy the confidence of a large body of the people in the integrity of one of the judges of the court of last resort, then I ought to be sent to jail." You have no power, in this form of action, to send the plaintiff to jail or otherwise punish. him,, but if upon this investigation his charges arc false he cannot complain of a mere judgment for defendant's costs against him, which he himself acknowledges cannot be made out of him by law. His own costs and expenses, according to his testimony, are not borne by himself. All this litigation has been carried on without cost to Mr. Green in any particular. So we see he at least has nothing to lose. A solid year almost has been consumed in the preparation and trial of this case, during which time the parties and their attorneys have been almost constantly engaged. Nearly four months of your time have been taken up since you were sworn and impanelted as a jury, but I would remind you, gentlemen, that it has not been our fault. Judge Hargiis did not bring this Litigation into this court to vex and annoy the good people of Louisville. He came here, however, when sued, and entered his appearance, without objection to the court or the county in which he was sued, not even making the objection, which he could per- haps have made successfully, that he was not sued in the county of his residence. We have no' asked even for a change of venue. He has come willing to submit this case to a jury of honest men, whatever may be their avocations in life, and let them be obtained from whatever por- tion of this broad Commonwealth they inay. He is willing to trust his all in your hands. You have seen in the testimony of this case, however, that this con- troversy is six years old. It began in the heat and partisan strife of a race for Judge in the Fourteenth Judicial District in I874. It was revived in the canvass for Appellate Judge in 1879. One remarkable fact appears in the history of this controversy, and that is, that as early as June, 1874, Judge Hargis, after the plaintiff had made this charge for the first time in the early days of June, i874, wrote what is known in this record as the Open Letter, dated the 8th of June, 1874, and 5 ARGUMENT OF HON. hIENRY L. STAONE. published in the Mercury, at Carlisle, in Nicholas county. That letter was circulated all over the Fourteenth Judicial District. It was pub- lished in the newspapers throughout that District. These charges having been first intimated by the plaintiff, without stating the facts, or supporting the charges by record and oral evidence, as appears in that letter, the defendant charged that the plaintiff was a venal writer-that he was a willful and malicious liar, slanderer, and coward. But what does the plaintiff do Does he bring a suit for libel Does he take any personal action in the matter He contents himself by shooting paper bullets at the defendant through the columns of his villainous sheet, the Maysville Eagle. For five years the matter rests in that shape What more could Judge Hargis do After the plaintiff had thus submitted to the denunciations contained in that Open Letter, neither instituting suit for libel against defendant, nor taking any other steps as a man thus denounced ought to have done, there was no other course for Judge Hargis to pursue than to treat his publications with the silent contempt they deserved. Judge Hargis took no notice of him until i879, and even then in the article on which this action is brought he does not mention the name of Mr. Green. Yet, this man who swallowed the words of Judge Hargis in' 1874, when he called him a malicious liar, slanderer, and coward, comes into this court-house, having slept on the Open Letter for five years, and says now that he is greatly slandered because Judge Hargis has, in the Cowrierjozurmnal article, called him a willful calumniator. With what consideration, I ask you as honest men, should you treat a man that acts in that way What consideration does he deserve at your hands He is too long in discovering that his reputation can be injured by the defendant. Why didn't he bring his suit in the county of Nicholas, the residence of Judge Hargis, where the Open Letter thus denouncing him was published, when all these matters were fresh in the recollec- tion of witnesses, when some of the most important witnesses in this controversy were then alive and could have testified, among whom were judge Apperson, Stevens Roe, Samuel R. Elliott, C. E. Johnson, Wm. L. Sudduth, Judge Elliott, and divers others who are now dead and gone. No, he did not choose to bring his action then and there, but he chose to bring it out of the county of Judge Hargis' residence, away from the people of his section, among strangers, but among plaintiff's own kinsmen, college-mates, and personal friends in the city of Louisville. Judge Hargis brought his witnesses and attorneys here at frightful expense in railroad- and hotel fare, hundreds of miles. to make good the charge against the plaintiff-that he is a willful calumni- ator. Upon Mr. Green's own chosen ground the defendant has not been afraid or failed to meet him, and asks no quarter. Do you believe, after all these facts, that the plaintiff brought this action in good faith Do you believe that this action was instituted by the plaintiff for the purpose of recovering damages from the defendant on account of an alleged injury to his character In April, i874, John R. Taber was the clerk of the Rowan Circuit Court, and the custodian of its records Sometime in that month it was discovered that certain mutilations had been made upon his books. ,First, that a leaf had been taken out of Order Book, No. 2, containing a portion of the orders of the 28th of August, i866; that a leaf had been cut from the Minute Book corresponding with those orders; that 6 ARGUMENT OF HON. HENRY IL SIJNE. the index to the Record Book had been erased to some extent on the numbers of pages opposite the name of the defendant, leaving but the figures 82 and his name. and that a forgery had been committed, forging some names on said index, the exact names not being intelligible; that at the February Term of that court, i866, an order appointing and qualifying the defendant as examiner had been partially erased, while the minute corresponding with that order had been left untouched; and that the Common Law Docket had been so altered as to insert the initials E and H, representing Elliott Hargis, in certain cases on that Docket for the February Term, i866. In April, 1874, Jas. W. Johnson was the clerk of the Rowan County Court and the custodian of its records. rhe Order Book, containing the record of proceedings in the year i866 in that court, was mutilated in this manner: First, an order qu alifying James Carey as administrator of John Carey at the regular February term, upon the i9th of Febru- ary, 1866, was partially erased, and the top of the order relating to the guardian settlement of J. B. Zimmerman was also erased; and at the regular May term, the 21st of May, t866, an order was almost entirely erased, and at the regular June term the same year, two orders were forged at the foot of the page-one purporting to qualify the defendant as an attorney in that court, and the other appointing one Robert Hen- derson surveyor of a certain road. At the July term of the same court, its regular term upon the (6th of July, r866, was an order which orig- inally read releasing this same man Henderson as surveyor of that road, and altered so that it would read as having been done upon the motion of the defendant. Thus you see there were three books mutilated in the circuit court clerk's office, and one '-ook in the county court clerk's office. The fact that these mutilations were committed is beyond all question. That is a conceded proposition. There is no positive proof, however, as tn who committed these acts. No witness in this entire rccord has undertaken to swear lwho did commit these acts, or either of them. The best and the most that either the plaintiff or the defendant has been able to obtain upon the question of the guilt or innocence of the party who committed these mutilations, is circumstan- tial in its nature. The plaintiff claims that in April, 1874, the defend- ant was ineligible to the office of Circuit Judge, for which he was a candidate, and that the record showed the fact that he was ineligible, and for the purpose of destroying the evidence of his ineligibility these records were destroyed by him or ar his instance. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that he was eligible to that office, that the records showed his eligibility to the office, and that the mutilations were made, not in his interest, but in order to destroy the evidences of his eligibil- ity, and that it was done by some one opposed to him, in the interest of aRd by his enemies. Such is the attitude of the parties to this contro- versy. This question of eligibility, I grant you, has entered into this controversy to a very large extent Upon your decision in that regard, depends in a great degree your decision as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant You have learned, in the progress of this trial, that, for an attorney to be eligible to the office of circuit judge at the August election, 1874, it was necessary that he should have been a licensed practicing lawyer for a period of eight years. You have learned further that, as a preliminary step in obtaining a license to practice law, the statutes directed that he should obtain a certificateof his honesty. prob- 7 ARGUMENT OF HON. HENRY L. STONE. ity, and good demeanor from the county court of the county of his residence. The court has instructed you as to the certificate as follows: " The law in i866 made it necessary, before a license to practice law could be granted, that the applicant therefor should first obtain from the county court, of the county of his residence, a certificate that he was a man of honesty, probity and good demeanor, and that such certificate should be produced or presented to the judges to whom the applica- tion for license was made. No special time was necessary within which, after the obtention of the certificate, it should be so presented to the judges to whom the application for license was made. In this case the jury are instructed that the signing and granting of the license to defend- ant by Judges Andrews and Apperson is to be regarded by them as con- clusive evidence that the requisite certificate of his honesty, probity and good demeanor had been theretofore obtained, and presented or pro- duced by him to said judges; but not as to the particular day or time when said order of the County Court of Rowan was made. " Thus under that instruction it is not a question as to whether Judge Hargis ever had such a certificate. You are not to inquire as to whether he ever obtained such a certificate. The court, has said to you that the license itself is conclusive upon that question, and the only open question under that instruction is the time whenl he obtained such certificate. The gentlemen who tlave argued this case so far for the plaintiff have undertaken to show to you that it was neces- sary for that certificate to be recorded. I deny it. The court has not so told you. These same gentlemen struggled hard to get such an, instruction, and they know it was oveLruled.. The county judge cam call his court in session at any time and hold a special term. The orders and proceedings. at special term, and the acts of the judge thus performed, are as binding and obligatory and as conclusive uporb the rights of parties as if made at a regular term. I believe the only two things that a county judge cannot hold a special term for are the granting of tavern license and the probate of wills. It is conceded that the defendant was sworn into the circuit court upon the 28th of August, i866. I maintain from the evidence in this case that five propositions, which I will undertake to discuss, have been established: First. That the defendant obtained his certificate prior to the first day of the February Term of the Rowan Circuit Court, 1866. Second. That Judge Andrews signed his license upon the night of the 26th of February, the first day of the February Term of the Rowan Circuit Court, 1866. Thiid. That Judge Apperson signed his license at Grayson upon the 2d day of April, the first day of the April Term of the Carter Cir- cuit Court, i866. Fourtk. That he was sworn in on the 2ist of May, at the regular May Term of the Rowan County Court, 1866, as an attorney at law. Fifth. That he practiced his profession as an attorney after the May Term of the Rowan County Court, i866, and before the 1st day of- August, i 866. Befbre going into a discussion of these propositions, I desire to calt your attention to the preceding history of Judge Hargis. We learm from this record that he was born in the county of Breathitt on the 24th day of June, i842. Among the rugged mountains of Eastern Kentucky, without any of the appliances of wealth, or influential and 8 ARGUMENT OF lION._ HENRY L_ STONE. distinguished relatives to surround him, with no educational advan- tages. he spent the first fourteen years of his life. He was not born upon some estate in the bluegrass region, bearing some aristocratic name, as the plaintiff says he was. He cannot boast a long line of ancestry, but he is of poor and honest parents. He was not even blessed with the early love and training of a mother, who died while he was an infant in her arms. This untutored boy we find in the new county of Rowan, at Morehead, in 1856, toiling in the Valley of the Triplett, upon his father's farm, among the rocks and the pines of that sterile region. On court occasions he -was engaged waiting upon his father's guests, blacking their boots or currying, watering, and feeding their horses. On one occasion, graphically described by Charlton H. Ashton (who in after years by the force od circumstances became his warm and ardent friend), while seated in the porch at his father's hotel, being up there on a fishing excursion, Ashton saw some young man coming up the road driving an ox team. He drove it around in front of the porch, and he asked Col. Hargis who that was. He made him the answer: " It is my son Tom." Ashton says the young man had on brown jeans pants, ragged and torn, and rolled up to the knees, no coat, bare-footed, in his shirt sleeves, with a broad-brimmed straw hat on his head, much worn. He was apparently about seventeen years of age, and much freckled. That is the way that the defendant first pre- sented himself to Charlton H. Ashton. My friend, Mr. Larew, says that there is nothing remarkable in the history of the defendant, that he was like other mountain bovs. Mr. Larew has not traveled the same road with the defendant. He does not appreciate the fact that the defendant is a self-made man, and when he undertook upon the cross-examination of Mr. Ashton, to bring this touching picture of the early life of Judge Hargis into contempt and ridicule, he only increased a sympathy which is natural in the bosom of every one. Mr. Larew asked: "Why, Mr. Ashton, how did I appear to you when you first saw me," and Ashton describes my fri