The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1853-09-21
THE DAILY DISPATCH.
TRIAL OF WILLIAM B. PORTER, FOR
MURDER.
REPoRTED FOR THE pIsPATcHl
Louisa Circuit Court .Rich'd h Field, Judge.

to"sHto"HtuttHf w. I'm. ID. Porter, charged Etfh the
murder Of Richard 4Williams.
The evidence being through on both sides the
argument commenced ON the part of the common.
wealth with Mr.. Charles s. Jones' who after brief
Introduction read to the jury the statutes defining
murder In first degree, and murder in second
degree Next referred to the law in Starkie to the
effect that slight discrepancies between the state
mcnts of witnesses, so far from discreditinr them
is an evidence of their truth
He then commenced an investigation of the eyi-
dence and dwelt on that part of the evidence which
showed long hostility between Porter and Wi.
lianls. Then Mr.. Jones passed on to the conduct
OF the prisoner at the rverhis failure to ask any
one of the many questions that naturally and spon
taneously would arise to any mans mind and
force itsei to the tongue, when murder is com
mitted and the dead man found so near his dwell.
ling, and on one whom he knew. Dwelt on his
close examination OF the person of Williams and
his strange enquiry alter they had started away
from the river, Have you all found out who the
man Isl" Williams was well known TO the pri
soner, and how did it happen that all the other
neighbors could readily recognize him, and prison
er be the only one who seemed not to know who
it twas-why that close long look at Williams facel
1T was, said Mr.. Jones, to ascertain whether such
decomposition had taken place as that Williams
well taken, and strongly maintained, Mr.. Jones
concluded.
FOR THE DEFENCE
AIr. HIM. +. Gordon, Jr., said that the first fact
committedl That he admits is fully established;
next who did il, and whether the perpetrator was
guilty OF murder with malice and deliberate pur-
pose or otherwisef
He held, that the history of this murder com.
menced with Mrs. Williams eyidence-dwelt here
briefly the first part of ii, and passed ON to the
testimony of DR.. Eastman, to the wounds from
the shot and said that this disproved any intention
to kill Williams, as DIR. Eastman said the wound
could not have injured him. He then argued that
toh on1p fab1
Oft, according to Mrs. Williams, that he Porter
started In the direct line of magistrates house
and doubtless meant to have him tried for threats
he had made against him. He then went into a
view OF the evidence to show that Sally Perry was
the person whom Mrs Williams feared would do
her husband injury, and not porters Admit all
that Mrs. Williams said to be true, and it proves
nothing more than that Porter may have known of
the murder and concealed it, And ifhe did not dis
close IL then that there were the strongest feelings
OF the human heart, all appealing to him to be ST.
lent--tor the guilty murderers were sisters of his
wife and the aunts of his innocent children
Mr. Gordon then contended, that if the jury dis.
carded the testimony of Mrs. Williams, there was
no evidence connecting Porter with the death of
Williams. She, he said, stands alone in the state
ments of shooting tying and carrying off Williams
No other witness speaks of these things. As to the
threats alluded to and relied on by VIM Jones, as
proven by Harlow and others; they meant nothing
and proved nothing, and made no impression on the
witnesses who detailed them when they were made.
he then proceeded to comment, with severity, on
the evidence of Mrs. Williams, and undertook to
show that she had lied, to her feelings of atfec
tlon to her husband and as to her denying that she
had ever dlsclaimed the name of Mrs. Williams
He next dwelt on the painful spectacle of
brother being brought into Csurt, and forced to
prove sister to have perured herself, in order to
save the life OF an innocent man. John Perry the
brother, proved to be man OF unsuspected vara
city, by three magistrates of high standing in the
county and if the jury believe him, they are bound
to discredit her (Mrs. Willians) He referred al
so, to the evidence of Miss Chewnns-as to the
feelings of Mrs. w. towards her husband; and also
her declarations towards Porter and his wife, and
her threat to have them parted in less than three
years.
He maintained that the evidence of Mrs Williams
was the foundation stone on which the whole super-
structure rested, and that being swept away, it
must tumble and fall, the house built on sand
when winds and rains come He also here referred
to Starkie, on evidence to the effect that faith in
witness is lost, SO it is shown that he is ca
pabe of stating afalsehood-that when proven false
in one thing, the law presumes him false in all.
He believed that Susan Williams was the mur-
deress, and the motive which influenced her to lie
as she had done in her testimony was to screen
herself and cast the crime and the punishment on
an innOcent man.
He referred TO the many respectable men who
had long known Porter and their evidence In his
favor, and in conclusion, made an eloquent appeal
TO the jury in behalf of the accused
Mr. HIM. j. Robertson for defeace.-Introduce ced
his argument by reading decision, showing that
the character OF the accused is of importance in
of circumstantial evidence or comes from suspect
ed witnesses. And is not the chief witness here of
the Yilest charaeterf Is she not, in fact infamous
Strike out her evidence, and there is nothing to
convict. Woman is an angel or devil-she occu-
pies no medsm ground. The fairies are repre-
sented by female figures.
The higher the grade of crime, the stronger
must be the proof. wills on Circumstantial Eyi
deDce) This ia an indictment for murder the
hi CHEST of crimes, and should be sustained by the
strongest proof. Now the evidence here is entire
ly circumstantial. Even Mrs Williams does not
say she saw prisoner fire the gun or strike the
blows and it rule of evidence that the guilt of
the accused shall be fully proved, beyond all rea-
sonable doubt.
Mr, Robertson made case in point from Phil
lps Evidence, and commented upon the extreme
danger of conviction upon circumstrntial evidence
alone. He also cited two cases from Whartons Cri.
mind Law, and having commented at much length
upon them and upon the facts of this case asked
the jury how they could render verdict of guilty
on circumstances light IN themselves as gossamar
and Indebted to wicked Imagination of base but
cunning witness for all their vitality She is contra
dicted ON almost every point regarding the occur
rences at Porter's on the day of the supposed mur
der. Sally Perry is in jail ON Joint Indictment
and Mrs. Porter is excluded, being the prisoners
wife. His mother in her dotage, and his young
children OF course cannot testify.
Mr.. Robertson next proceeded TO show that the
witness was not worthy OF credit, and that she was
unfiielldly to Porter, for turning her away from
her husband, whom she Processes to have loved
Yet sne says she loved Porter tor his kindness
that he at last willing tor her to go, and gave
her directions to leave on the Wednesday preced-
ing. Yet ON the day that Williams was tried, she
Gays be asked her to kiss him, and that she would
have done SO, but for the presence of Porter and
he the man who had directed her to go to her hus-
band on the Wednesday before. Can any sane
man believe these inconsistent statements? 4
1t was laid down as admitted by the eloquent ad
vocafe for the Commonwealth that in cases of hon.
lclde, the law always presumes murder in the Sc
conds degree Here the prisoner is arraigned for
murder in the first degree, and you are asked to
hRd him guilty of that, when there is no evidence
OF malice of intent TO KILL on the part of the pr
soner, against Williams How can you find Porter
guilty of deliberately killing Williams? He is shot
with the gun merely. When, according to Mrs.
Williams statement, Porter had both q pistol and
a ride, and when the gun was fired at SO great
distance and hurt him little that w Wiliams told
her afterwards, .he was well, thank Godf' and he
was brought up to her, his glowing wife. Why is this
1t Porter intended TO kill hirni Why did he not
XII him III the woods, where there was no Witness
ana when be had him in his poweri Why did he
leave bis pistol and rifle al home when as she says
Williams was carried off to the river, II murder
was intendedf Mrs. w. says that she called on
rorter ON the day that Williams was tried, and ask
ca him to protect her husband from Sally Perry,
VINO was pursuing him with an axe; that Porter did
So Here the counsel dwelt upon the uniform good
cnaraefer OF Porter, and challenged anything to be
nroughf against him, except bis connection with