Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1860-05-01
NO. XIX.
For the Spectator.
Judicial Election.


Editors SpectGt0r-GRNTLEMEN: :-Altbouph
nothing has been written or printed, much has
been said, against Judge Thompson about a
criminal trial that took place in the county of
Augusta some time ago. For the purpose of
doing Judge 7. justice and setting the public
mind right on that subject, l propose very
brief examination of the case-without naming
the case the public will understand the allusion.
Let me remind all of those who are hostile to
Judge Thompson on account of the part he acted
in that case, that the cause was finally removed
to an adjoining county, before another Judge,
where the very same testimony was heard and
verdict of acquittal rendered and approved by
the community in which the trial was had
Let ne remind them that if a party is to be
convicted, it must be done according to the rules
of law and evidence-not upon outside opinions
founded upon many things that cannot be heard
and considered at the bar OF justice
Let me remind them that if the verdict of q
Jury is contrary to law and evidence or either,
it is not not only the privilege of the Judge, but
his bounden duty, to set it aside and grant new
trial. This duty is one of the safety valves in
the Organization of our Courts of justice.
Let Us examine the case referred to. That
the Commonwealth produced testimony on her
part, although of circumstantial character,
enough TO warrant a conviction, will not deny,
but the whole case turned upon the testimony
of one witness who was introduced for the ac-
cused, who swore to nothing in direct conf let
with the evidence of the Commonwealth, but to
additional facts, which, if true, relieved the ac-
cused of criminality-restng the whole case
upon her testimony. The Jury very honestly,
no doubt, disregarded her testimony, and found
a verdict of guilty. A motion was made to the
Court for new trial, upon the ground that the
verdict of the Jury was against the evidence.
In delivering his opinion, Judge Thompson
stated all of the legal rules by which testimony
was impeached in Courts of Justice, none of
which applied to the witness for the accused
and not being thus impeached, he said that we
are bound to receive it-that our lives and lib
critics and our rights to our property depended
On human testimony, and to reject it unim-
peached there would be no stopping point."-
W hilst the guilty must and ought to be punished,
the law must be preserved. outside opinion must
not be allowed to run riot over the law.
If that witness swore falsely and guilty par
ty has gone unpunished, the fault is not with
Judge Thompson-on the witness rests the re-
sponsibilty. II, on the contrary, the witness
told the truth, Judge T. saved an innocent man
from disgrace and punishment and when all
shall be revealed Judge Thompson will stand
justified.
Let me beg those to remember who would
ind fault with Judge Thompson on account of
the trial referred to, that they are bound to be-
lieve that Judge T. was honest and conscientious
in what he did; sitting, as he was, within a
few hundred yards of the spot where the tragedy
in the midst of community that had
been deeply excited by the occurrences COM
munity, too, entertaining pretty strong preudices
against the accused and witness on account of
their religious doctrines-his term of office soon
10 expire knowing no difference of Dlaces of birth
or religious belief (even if his judgement erred,
which is not admitted) did he not display
courage that is rare in these days of subserviency
in doing what he believed was right, and in sc-
cordance with the sentiments and feelings of his
heart, on the side OF innocence and mercy, car
rying out the humane and benign maxim of the
law ''That it is better that ninety and nine
guilty men should escape than that one innocent
man should suffer-" JUSTICE.