Garrett, Grover C.

Grover killed Clem Wackerly in a dispute over Clem''s daughter, Grover''s future wife, Cely Wackerly.

 State of Arkansas vs. Grover GarrettMotion for New Trial
Independence County Circuit Court, Fall Term, 1912
----
Comes the defendant, Grover Garrett, & moves the court to set aside the verdict rendered herein & gran him a new trial, & for cause says:-
1st. That the verdict & judgement are contrary to the law.
2nd. That the verdict & judgement are contrary to the evidence.
3rd. That the verdict & judgement are contrary to both the law & the evidence.
4th. That the court erred in excluding from the consideration of the jury the photographs taken & testified with reference to & introduced by the witness, H. M. Kennerly, over the objections of the defendant.
5th. That the court erred in refusing to require the witness, John Flinn, to answer questions relative to certain tracks at the scene of the killing.
6th. That the court erred in refusing to allow defendant to prove the statements of John Flinn relative to certain tracks at the scene of the killing by witnesses R. L. Foster, Jim Alex Bell, & John Bell, to the effect that the witness, John Flinn, had stated to said witnesses, Foster , in the presence & hearing of said Jim Alex Bell & John Bell, that he had found, at the scene of the killing, on his first visit thereto, the tracks of the deceased, Wackerly, advancing upon the defendant, Garrett, & the tracks of the defendant, Garrett, retreating from Wackerly.
7th. That the court erred in permitting the witness, James Smith, to testify, over the objections of the defendant, to certain threats or statements alleged to have been made by the defendant, Grover Garrett, a year or more prior to the date of the killing.
8th. That the court erred in giving to the jury, over the objections of defendant, instruction No. 6.
9th. That the court erred in giving to the jury, over the objections of the defendant, instruction No. 11.
10th. That the court erred in giving to the jury, over the objections of the defendant, instruction No. 13.
11th. That the court erred in giving to the jury, over the objections of the defendant, instruction No. 14.
12th. That the court erred in giving to the jury, over the objections of the defendant, instruction No. 16.
13th. That the court erred in giving to the jury, over the objections of the defendant, instruction No. 25.
14th. That the court erred in giving to the jury, over the objections of the defendant, instruction No. 31.
15th. That the court erred in giving to the jury, over the objections of the defendant, instruction No. 33. 
16th. That the court erred in giving to the jury, over the objections of the defendant, instruction No. 34.
17th. That the court erred in giving to the jury, over the objections of the defendant, instruction No. 35.
18th. That the court erred in giving to the jury, over the objections of the defendant, instruction No. 36.
19th. That the court erred in giving to the jury, over the objections of the defendant, instruction No. 37.
20th. That the court erred in refusing to give to the jury, instruction No. 1a, asked by the defendant.
21st. That the court erred in refusing to give to the jury, instruction No. 2a, asked by the defendant.
22nd. That the court erred in refusing to give to the jury, instruction No. 3a, asked by the defendant.
23rd. That the court erred in refusing to give to the jury, instruction No. 4a, asked by the defendant.
24th. That the court erred in refusing to give to the jury, instruction No. 5a, asked by the defendant.
25th. That the court erred in refusing to give to the jury, Instruction No. 6a, asked by the defendant.

Dene H. Coleman, and McCaleb & Reeder. Attorneys for Defendant.Filed November 7, 1912, Jas. T. Garrett, Clerk.