164 Slide – American State Trials 1918 Volume X Leo Frank Document

132 X. AMERICAN STATE TRIALS.

Worrell. Sergeant Clark says the duty of a sentinel is reg-
ulated by his ordera, and that he will always permit one of
his own regiment to pass, if satisfied of his honesty of pur-
pose, Worrell well knew that he ran no risk in attempting
to pass Messick.

In following the line of argument pursued by the counsel,
we are next brought to inquire if the depositions filed in be
half of the aecused furnish any reliable material for this de-
fense.

There is no species of testimony so unsatisfactory as that
of depositions; more particularly if taken, as in this case,
without a cross-examination. The jury have not the benefit
of seeing the witness, and noticing his manner of testifying,
which sre almost indispensable in determining the amount
of eredibility to be given to his statements, It will also be
seen by an examination of these depositions that most of the
questions are leading, and so framed as to admit of a neg-
ative or affirmative answer; but the State has interposed no
objection to them, preferring that they should go to you for
what they are worth.

The first deposition is that of H. T. Clark, who testifies that
the prisoner was sick in July, 1853, and in December, 1855;
that on both occesions he was out of his mind—on the last
occasion a physician was called in, who prescribed for him.
Mr. Clark does not inform us what the character of his sick-
ness was, and the defendant has not thought it advisable to
procure the deposition of the attending physician. The attack
of 1855 is to some extent explained by other testimony in the
ease, to which I shall advert hereafter. In this climate fevers
are very prevalent, and are almost invariably attended with
a temporary derangement of mind. I have myself upon sev-
eral occasions been so affected, and I suppose it is the case
with two-thirds of this audience. The testimony of Mr. Clark
for thia reason cuts no figure in the case.

The next deposition is that of H. Milea Moore, who statea
that the prisoner came to his office in Weston, Platte County,
Mo., in 1853, three years before the homicide, and requested
deponent to make an application in his behalf to the Secre-