Page:Palmore v. State.pdf/8

VOL. 29] Rh  barkeeper—a public barkeeper at a restaurant—to limit the quantity drank, although the affidavits show that the use was limited and moderate, confined principally to two feeble old men in the jury, who, it was thought, needed it. The use of any ardent spirits in such manner as is shown here is a gross irregularity. For even if a case should occur where stimulants would become absolutely necessary to any person, the administration of them should not be left to the discretion of a barkeeper in a public saloon.

This court has not favored the setting aside of a verdict for mere separation, unless something more than opportunity for undue influence is shown. Cornelius v. The State, 12 Ark., 782; Coker v. The State, 20 id., 53; Collier v. The State, id., 36; Staunton v. State, 13 id., 320.

The facts attending the homicide, as detailed by the witnesses, are substantially as follows:

L. H. Mangum testified: I live in Helena; the killing took place on my plantation last summer, one Sunday in May, in the evening, about three o'clock. Ellis and son came to take dinner with me; after dinner, Meyers and I proposed riding towards home with Ellis. Meyers had gone to the horse lot to saddle our horses, and prisoner rode up. Ellis and I were on the gallery; prisoner came up and spoke; I asked him to get down; he said no, he wanted to see me; he then crossed on the opposite side of the lane and stopped; he then said: Judge Mangum, I think a great deal of you; that damned fellow, Meyers, I understand, has told you that I said you were a damned grumbling scoundrel; but I want to tell you that I did not say it. I told him that Meyers had never intimated anything of the kind to me. Then he said: well, anyhow, he is going to cowhide me. I asked him for what, and he said, about hiring that nigger, George. I told him I did not think so, as he, Palmore, had acknowledged to Meyers