Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1859-04-14
From the Washington States Monday afternoor
Trial of Hon. Daniel q. 9ickles.
MONDAYS PRoCEEDINas--CON

u q
tried at this bar which demanded that tho rules
If evidence should be carefully respected, It was
b is case. le-'
As for the correspondence which il was sought
To introduce ho would like to know what bearing
1t could have in determining the character Of tho
act Tor which the prisoner was placed at tho bar
An assassination was an assassination, no matter
what was tho object of tho decd whether it was
prompted by gold. desire ofrcyenge, or any other
passion lilo considered the letter rs nothing
more than evidence Of merely courteous relations
between the paries, II tended to shed on that
question nu ray of light which any reasonable mind
could perceive II was sought, also, to introduce
evidence tho letters enclosed In the lettcr Of tho
deceased, which enclosed letters wero written by
other parties. Eyon if it were admissible to in
troduco tho letter. of courtesy the cnc'osurcs must
la rejected only what tho dcccnsed himself said
in terns Of courtesy could DO admitted.
Hc was not iam iar with any easo in which
such ovdcneo was received by tho court. II seem
ell thnt tho defence would have great difficulty in
proving friendly relation, between tho parties
when II was necessary to bring in anotc Of simple
courtesy written nearly twelve months before tho
death Of the deceased.
Because Mr.. Siakles had received Mr.. Key into
his house. was no inlirntion Of more than courto-
Gus relations between tho parties In this city II
was not custom before Introducing gentlemen
under your roof, to cxTct from him u guarantee
that he will not seduce your wife or daughter
Happily there nre still many cases Of virtue in
wives and maidens among us.
But the letter in question appeared to him rath-
er to bear evidence Of n recent difficulty than Of
friendly rel'tl' between tho parties. Mr.. Phil.
lips contenyrd that all evidence as to the relations
of tho parties pertinent tn the cnsc, The only
question which the court could pass upon WAS as
to the competency of tho letters in question IA ey-
idcncc; it was for the jury To determine thcr Of.
feet. No matter how slight waS the evidence of
friendly relations afforded by these letters they
were TO he admitted, d,-ovcn II they we've hut ~ dust
in the balance.
The court snid that the original lctter was ac-
companicd by six other letters, (cupica) II -aw
no bcnring which these letters could have on Il
case IA ptovng friendly relations between the
parties. The letters could not be admitted Ms evil
dcncc.
Mr.. Brady requested the cour, to notice an ex
t"ption to this ruling.
Mr.. William Badger. # philadel phia. was tho
first witness called for thu defence. Resided in
Philadelphia. Was navy ngent. Had held tho
situation for two yenrs. Knew both parties very
we'll. Had known Mr.. Sirkles since his return
from the Court Of st. james. So inr us hc knew.
the rca ions Of the par .ics were Of tho most init
natn character. Knew Mrs. Sirklcs very well.
indeed WIS IL, II dinner party given by Mr. Sic.
kes nt his residence, shortly before drrrasc If Mr..
key. Mr.. Key wn- there IA a guest Mrs. Sic
k'cs sat the table.
Being nskei who clSc wns there
Mr.. CARLISLE objected Il, the question as being
immateral
/ Mr.. BRADY said he wished to show that the init
mate friends of Mr. Sicklcs wcrc at the party that
part of,he family of Mr.. kcy were there.
Mr. Carlisle did not see how the relations of the
members Of Mr.. koys fanily with TINT Of Mr. Sic
kle,' could have bearing on the case. lie did not
think that this collateral evidence WAS admissible
and to what purpose were those who had suffered
hnt..
tue public?
! All he asked The court was to confne the evi-
| ,enco to the direct relations between the prisoner
and the deceased and not to suffer the evidence to
bc st, cchod 20 as to brugin other parties who
| lave nothing to do with the oass.
Mr.. Brady said that the court. in tho case ofJar-
Doe. had given ample warrant for the argument
| now made ly the defence.
! No one more sympathizcd with the family Of
Mr.. Key than himself but when man is on tri-
nj for his lifc it is the duty OF his friends and
counsel To produce all evidence which will bear
iavorably on his case, irrespective Of the feelings
| of the deceased.
Every link which could provo the existence of
! intimate relations between tho parties was Of tho
ulmo., Importance to Mr. Sicklcs. All that the
! jury nd learned WAS that the parties Ind mot in
tho street and that Mr. Key died by the hand Of
Mr.. Sicke.. The jury had ns yet no evidence, Of
the previous acquaintance Of the parties and, In
the absence or such evidence, they must hnd YER
dict Of guilty. 1t was. therefore, the purpose of
the defence to prove intimate relation; and tho
! question asked the witness had adircct bearing on
| thecase.
The Court decided that the question was notad-
missible.
Mr. Badger continued: The company separated
about eleven o'clock. Thought that Mr.. Rey left
about the timo witness. Did not SEQ Key again
that evening. Last time he saw him wasat hop
at Wizards the next day Key did not come
with Mrs. Sickles.
Mr. Cagger, Of Albany, was next called, at
which time Judge Crawford loft his seat for a few
moments, and our report closed.
| In tho court We noticed tho Commissioner
of the General Land Office, Hon. John Kelly, the
Commissioner of Public Buildings Manager Stew
art Hon. Reveriy johnson. (who was writing at
the lawyers tablet Chevalior Wykof and the ia
thor of Mr. Sickles.