The Randolph Case: The Fourth day’s proceeding-the conclusion

– – – The Randolph Case. The Fourth Day”s Proccedings-The Con- clusion. Yesterday morning, the Court inct to heur the arguments of the Judge Advo- cate and Counsel, the testiniony having been concluded.- The Judge Advocate was permilted to waivo tha opening and reserve the con- cludlug argument. Argumeuts for the detense were read by Maj. Randall, by Maj. Pierce, and by Mr. Somerville, to which the Judgo Advocate replied, and the case was with the Court. We have endeavored to give the avi- dence in this case in full, as nearly as pos- sible in the language of the witnesses, and with perfect impartiality. In this wo have sncceeded. We regret that wo cannot al- so lay before the public the arguments upon which the caso was submitted to the Court. The facts, however, are known to the world; substantially as they appear upon the records, and the arguments could scarce present the unfortunaté affair for, which the prisoner was arraigned in a clearer light; but, at the risk of . doing all parties injustice, we add a synopsis of the arguments as wo remember the points made: .Tlio counsel for the defence urged that there was no proof that Mr. Randolph had ever beforo seen or heard of Eddins, or of malice or anattack withintent to kill; that the pistol was firedsolely for the purpose of dispersing a riotous assembly,into the wall above the lieads of the crowd, and with- ont any intention of hurt any one; that the shot was not fired, aud could not have been fired, at Eddins, as there were at the time n. number of persons betweon Ran- dolph and Eddins; that Eddins, who was armied with a formidable bludgeon and a butcher knife, and was then beating Hol- lingsworth, turned uponlandolph and as- sailed hint with his club, striking him twice; that then the accused, unarmed ex- cept with (a pocket knife, ent his assail- ant; that the cutting was done in self-de- fence; that had Eddins been killed it wonld heve been justifiable homicide; that the indictment alleging malice and intent to kill, the prisonor must be acquitted, even if he had not acted in self-defenco,because no malice and intent to kill lind been showh; that tho principal witness for the prosecntionliad contradicted himself under oath, that every material statement inehis testimopy had been disproved by the oth- er witnesses, and that lie had beon direct- ly impeached by a witness who had known him for 21 years, and swore that this rop- utation was that of a.notorions liar; that Hamner, the other witnoss for the prose- cution, was evidently embittered against the accused, by whom he had been de- nounced in the Monitor, and, was cóntra- dioted by Edding and other witnessses in material matters; that the extracts from the Monitor which had been admitted as ovidence had not been legally connected with Randolph in any way, no proof hav- ing been made that they were written by him, or that lie had’ ever seen them; thant if Randolph wrote the articles that had been read to the Court, they had no bear- ing whatever oir the caso being tried, and should not be considered by the Court, that these articles had ovidently been in- troduced for the purpose of unduly preju- dicing the judges against the prisonerjand that the Court owed it to themselves and the conutry to divest themselves of allpo- litical prejudices, to try the case upon its merits, and to render impartial justice between the govornment and the accused and, demanding this, they asked nöthing more. These and other points that have escap= ed our attention were pressed upon the analezed in its – – – The Randolph Case. The Fourth Day”s Proccedings-The Con- clusion. Yesterday morning, the Court inct to heur the arguments of the Judge Advo- cate and Counsel, the testiniony having been concluded.- The Judge Advocate was permilted to waivo tha opening and reserve the con- cludlug argument. Argumeuts for the detense were read by Maj. Randall, by Maj. Pierce, and by Mr. Somerville, to which the Judgo Advocate replied, and the case was with the Court. We have endeavored to give the avi- dence in this case in full, as nearly as pos- sible in the language of the witnesses, and with perfect impartiality. In this wo have sncceeded. We regret that wo cannot al- so lay before the public the arguments upon which the caso was submitted to the Court. The facts, however, are known to the world; substantially as they appear upon the records, and the arguments could scarce present the unfortunaté affair for, which the prisoner was arraigned in a clearer light; but, at the risk of . doing all parties injustice, we add a synopsis of the arguments as wo remember the points made: .Tlio counsel for the defence urged that there was no proof that Mr. Randolph had ever beforo seen or heard of Eddins, or of malice or anattack withintent to kill; that the pistol was firedsolely for the purpose of dispersing a riotous assembly,into the wall above the lieads of the crowd, and with- ont any intention of hurt any one; that the shot was not fired, aud could not have been fired, at Eddins, as there were at the time n. number of persons betweon Ran- dolph and Eddins; that Eddins, who was armied with a formidable bludgeon and a butcher knife, and was then beating Hol- lingsworth, turned uponlandolph and as- sailed hint with his club, striking him twice; that then the accused, unarmed ex- cept with (a pocket knife, ent his assail- ant; that the cutting was done in self-de- fence; that had Eddins been killed it wonld heve been justifiable homicide; that the indictment alleging malice and intent to kill, the prisonor must be acquitted, even if he had not acted in self-defenco,because no malice and intent to kill lind been showh; that tho principal witness for the prosecntionliad contradicted himself under oath, that every material statement inehis testimopy had been disproved by the oth- er witnesses, and that lie had beon direct- ly impeached by a witness who had known him for 21 years, and swore that this rop- utation was that of a.notorions liar; that Hamner, the other witnoss for the prose- cution, was evidently embittered against the accused, by whom he had been de- nounced in the Monitor, and, was cóntra- dioted by Edding and other witnessses in material matters; that the extracts from the Monitor which had been admitted as ovidence had not been legally connected with Randolph in any way, no proof hav- ing been made that they were written by him, or that lie had’ ever seen them; thant if Randolph wrote the articles that had been read to the Court, they had no bear- ing whatever oir the caso being tried, and should not be considered by the Court, that these articles had ovidently been in- troduced for the purpose of unduly preju- dicing the judges against the prisonerjand that the Court owed it to themselves and the conutry to divest themselves of allpo- litical prejudices, to try the case upon its merits, and to render impartial justice between the govornment and the accused and, demanding this, they asked nöthing more. These and other points that have escap= ed our attention were pressed upon the analezed in its