Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1852-07-13

ns Accordingly the prisoner was put upon ns .orncv
ins, then filed by the Commonwculth 50, ~ xiii
rrlp. him with mulc!ousIy Striking WIN ,nnne,
The ,a-e tricd the mes-he d He was then
~. Si,h mnrder tried again July on new inT,
ion and condemned for murder IN Tue is NJ ,hr dav
nr,hr, information could The day, or the
ni.' a @ oiven of these subsequent proceedings
Notwithstanding you have gravey chateeu . aa r.
nis onl.sion can hardly excuse mysei io ho"''"s -
Again you say: NJ
9TH charge, then, Us the record shows was tha ne LIN
malicosy beat with Intention in go DOING 10 III,
~; No. snd II r. w. 10 tic great injury OF him. the said
r. f. Williams" And here again Il strange lac'. iue
Judge in quoting his part 9" I've feG, oS said r.
rn This !. the impor'unt part because shows me
alarucer of charge, and yet its place supplied "!'
S.r whist tho less Important is copied. r 49,
Ear the sake OF brevily extracted only so neh Oh se
information charged that Chester had w'uy anu AZ h
cousy heat, with ntenon 10 kill-ano oh.teu ~ ILL MI
mil climax that he intended do ths-iha Is 10 Eli w"
liam. so the srea, injury of him. The said Nlilams
less the fact. Pray pardon my ignorance .houg. 'e lin
,enon 10 inurc might be implied from The intention W s
and really thought The intent TO Kill more .7nporim -
show The character Of the charge than The intent 10
But you say -
uficrc then is MATERIAL OMISSION and quickly oHoMsa
souoTarioS In quoting the decision OF inc Cou.t upo.
his rial tho Judge omitted iacse the words MASNER
,Sn ron "as THEY UPON THE RECORD. ilc An
poRrAscE and aATEaALlTv Of this could no' we th IA
cane the attention OF Judge That these "olus
have been i.alicised upon the record is rane A'
| md ,aken with the context its meaning IS oo'ious. r.
Guil,y-cullty-of the omission oniy sem'ehtn ND
the least conception OF lis mdtera;sy. in|' non cav
should have been italicized upon the record Is a' yu Ga.
"ralher remarkable" SO much So that II IS teay '
frs lime ever knew those or any WORDS IN Tue ,S
of Cour, alicised upon the record 10 you hol h
h ,nrts are usually inserted in all Judgments OF con-
demnaticn or acquitM? Can yon seriously oe'ese a NV,
judgments of Court like newspaper p a.nS.pi when
anv additional force or require different CONSTRUCTION ~e
amy Do these italics or this underscorins rather
which your keen scrutiny discovered in the copy Of Tue
cord appear also on the order BOOK anu "'i' va
thus marked by the order OF the Court ,h (which II
But am tired Of brushing away these coo"eos winch :
80 easy 10 spin OF me {hnk every
which you legal learning You state The "e
rheT broadly when you represent me as declaring Ma u
has been long time since looked 'n0 lac o s"eh dsc
ration Ny remark was ' is sometime since hGa occasion
give particular attention to the criminal law" very
for venlurng d er with yourselves on point OF Jaw
shall again this le DISCUSSION
of that question: You may find out, perhaps, or alreaoy
know the difference between cases OF msdeIneano u leu
N.Y. and that convictions acquiIlas OF the one are no o
in general against prosecutions Tor the othe whch nuS
explain the you have cited from Pickering
You NAV perhaps find some law upon this subject without
going Massachusetts, But be this as II may, permit nc
with all rcspect 10 repeat the question Had you been Inc
acting Governor and entertained the opinion apparently en-
ertanei by the able counsel for the prisoner by MI
land and Wyndham Robertson, might name o.hcts "use
opinions even you might respeci that the prisoner was u
lawfully condenned; chat coud you hare done wouu you
have suffered him be executed or have nun
10 the vengeance Of awless mob7 No-l undertake 10
answer for would have respected your OATH and
sa''sS''' ''''"''s'' ''"' '''' JOHN ROBERTSON
In this there is a small eor, hough enough for Judge
wi,cism and justification bul his mastery ellofs are 10
DO found in his double and special pleading In this we will
be expected equal the Judge because We are not even
lawyers; Judge make no better argument In sup
port of cause Judge R. has in this il must De nope
less one all will admit that his letters read very much
like certain Texas Report-and are as 'clear as mud.
His first criticism s that we, In former article said
that his letter justified the act of Governor johnson upon
ground of the of intent and that ne justified his
brothers. act upon different ground Is there any ncon-
sslsncy in this Certainly no We said his letter Just-
fled Governor Johnson unntenionay Of course because
in his argument he said the intent necessary 10 consl
tu,e murder technically speaking Might he not have done
this though attempting justify his brother upon wholly
different ground Unquesonaby, and his former letter
| shows il.
He quotes passage in which we proved that Lieut.
Governor Robertson special agent by night TO bring
the convict away for fear of popular indignation and rio
sne says "who doubted what you have been at
all pains prove?" and then says the 1colc scope Of
his remarks had been to urge h, fact Now, we ask The
candid mind this true3 To answer it, it is but necessa
~ 10 state The facts, they occurred In first article
stated Wyndham Robertson did this thing, and argued that
the manner of doing showed that he himself supposed
By The peopieof syrania hn they should learn that Ches
had rprred aggravated had been his ogence-
This Judge r. in his first Letter. denied by aborng 10 show
that the manner sending the epcve not unusual
and eproachcd for knowing IT, Then we relied no
longer upon sndoremns blu, prord the fact fully by the
special messenger Having done this that the Judge can
NOT cover M the tracks, cries out who denied f
That has been The whole burden Of my song-'he very
word was trying sny" WE'LL be it SO, the public will
Judge; but syour flint sill, picking" Judge for II miss
ed FIRE that time
In reference 10 the point made BY him. viz the state
of the decuaseds MIMI is unnecessary to say mnc Tor
the Judge now admits the of all We said upon
this poin and whether he did not In his first letter make
an insnuaon 10 the contrary and which would msead and
deceive c will leave 10 those who read his letter. We
.nl there Is no ground testimony for difference of
opinion upon this point.
But The Judges and last complaint s that ~e chas
ed him with emitting certain parts of the record and mis-
quoting Others and that when he poicsed 10 give THE
rAcrs as THEY STOOD TRE RECORD. Well, whether
we succeeded in sustaining those charges or not those "h'
read our article can judgc-cerany have reason 10
change our opinions upon these issues and we had mad
doubts as TO the nnd force of our argument
bis LONG lsbored twisting argument and special pleading
of This able Judge would satisfy that even he believed
that our logic and aw say nothing OF the acts we pre-
sned were not 10 be regarded with Indifference though the
Judge "coud hardly excuse himself for noticing them"
Here is what then said
In our fret article gave detailed statement OF the
manner and lmes OF trial. simply because we dd not regard
those points cialy affecting the merits OF the case
But Judge Roberts uses the action Of hls brother upon
the ground Chester had been previously tried and ac-
omitted OF offence ana says LET Us have Inc FACTS AS
srAxp rpoS THE RECORD and then processes 10 give
rh.m Now is not strange that after this ISTlMATioS 10
say the eas that had not given ALL the acis and rs
n,ci,lv as THEY eraSp UPON the RECORD" is not
strange We say JUDGE r. should or MisouoTE
any fact exhibited by the record And yet he did
So rs show He gives detailed statement OF the
date OF offence, the date of the warrant calling the
ca for his Trial but curiousy oMTs TO GIVE
UpoS WHICH THAT CoUkT tor the trial OF
hough he gives the date OF every other Court and
incident connected herewith. The DAY upon which this
first Court have met: WAS very MATERIAL because II
showed the character of the first charge against Chester
and explains the subsequent action of the Court The
cord shows this Court called for the 2h day Of
dpri rery day upon lrheh Williams died, and if il had
met might have tried Chester before the death of his vic
tim the charge therefore, could mol have been for murder,
dea had ensued The charge then the record
shows that he "iluiy and mariously beat with in
enon in doing to Kill him., the SAID J. l. W., 10 the
real injury of him the said I. T. Williams" And here
,gan is strange fact The Judge in quoting this OF