The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1867-11-21

all extreme cases, and should not be cited
for the guidance of this jury.
/ The defence had now been compelled
to admit, although no one who knew her
: ever saw the body, that it was that o.
} Mary Emily Phillips. They now rest the
case upon the question Did this party
: commit the murder? So strong has beer
!. the evidence upon that fact that they have
been obliged to throw away all minor con.
; siderations-have cast themselves upon
the point that the case admits of reason
able doubt. Every other material point
is conceded. They claim only that there
is doubt about whether he is the perpe-
traitor of the crime.
Now, gentlemen, it is most undoubtedly
true that no man can be convicted of a
crime if there is q rational doubt of his
guilt. 1t is principle of the law which
none of US would wish to disturb; but be
cautious lest you give it undue weight
lest, for fear of doing injustice to the crimi-
nal, you do injustice to the Commonwealth.
To acquit man upon fanciful supposi-
ton is equally crime against society.
This brings US back to the Instructions
Of the court.
The Attorney then read the instructions,
and gave his views of their meaning.
Judge Crump had endeayored to prove
that the facts which would establish a
moral certainty were those also which lead
to the establishment of demonstrative
certainty. He begged leave to differ fraW
this Interpretation. If this were the casB
it would be impossible to convict any man
unless there were witnesses of his
crime. It was not in the nature of human
evidence to admit in criminal trials of such
q degree of certainty as the counsel had
argued to be necessary. A man may be
linked to the victim of his crime by acts
committed before or afterwards, and if
these cannot be explained, the evidence is
equally conclusive. circumstances COM
ing from various independent sources with
out concert of witnesses are frequently
even more conclusive than visual evidence.
Presumptive evidence has the advantage
Of being more easily disproved. The cir
cumstantial evidence adduced by the Com
monwealth, as a general thing, is beyond
reproach, and the witnesses will compare
favorably with those in any other case.
The counsel for the accused had insisted
that there must be no conviction if there
was any hypothesis other than that of the
guilt of the accused. They seem to have
forgotten that it is necessary that such
hypothesis be rational and consistent with
the facts in the case. 1t has been re-
marked before in this trial that when evil
dence is inconclusive Of itself it acquires
additional weight when the suspicious
conduct Of the accused remains unex-
planned. The counsel for the accused
have been unable, with all their ingenuity,
to frame any hypothesis whatever which
we can call reasonable. Has he brought
forward any supposition which we can
bring our minds to believe at all probable.
If you can't frame rational hypothesis,
then it must follow that the one to which
the facts adduced naturally tend is the
true one. Further, it is not sufficient that
you should doubt his guilt because there
is one little thing which does not positively
point to the accused as the author Of the
crime. AS soon might we doubt that
mighty river is not rushing on toward
the ocean. because it is sometimes turned
from its course in ripples.
Passing from these points of law, Colo
mel Young then reviewed the evidence.
! lie could not say that it was much Of all
indiscretion in the prisoner to marry u
"dowerless girl" Why should he, a poor
man, have been ashamed of marrying
poor woman? Still, he concealed it from
his parents and friends, and beyond an in
tercepted letter, read, as we now learn, by
the Turner'S, his marriage was unheard of.
| Ii there was any candor shown in the
matter it wasn't shown by him. There
was therefore no determination on his part
to recognize the fact. He never told it
| here to any one, nor was there the least
step taken by him to let il be known. She
was under her mothers roof, and he went
there to take her away. Now, he either
intended to bring her away to ac-
knowledge her, or for some other
purpose. He brought her to Richmond.
Was not there some object in this !
Was it for acknowledgment? If so,
wouldn't he have acknowledged it to some
of his intimate friends after he reached
the city Wouldn't he have told them
that he had brought his wife to town
But secresy marked his every movement,
and every act proved that acknowledgment
was not his purpose. There is, therefore,
no lust purpose shown on his part in
bringing his wife to Richmond. In that
state of the case he goes and gets pistol
upon the pretence that friend wished to
buy it; and yet, with all the diligent eff
forts that had been made to find that
| friend who wished to buy that pistol,
he could not be found. After he borrowed
the pistol he goes to the boarding house OF
Mrs. Winfree, and without disclosing any
thing about his wife, returns to the Vlr-
pinia House and goes out with her. Where
was he going with her? lie had told her
that he was going somewhere. 1t had been
said that she had relations in Richmond,
but no proof had been shown that she had
any other relative than Mrs. Hicks. Was
it not fair and just to suppose that he had
Interior designs Of some kind towards her!
| They went down the street and passed by
Mrs. Winfree's. There, for the last time,
as far as was known, human eyes were laid
upon this woman. Shortly after this, ac-
cording to the statement of the defence,
a separation took place, he turned, and
returned at once to Miles Phillips's. No
cause for the separation had ever been
shown. Now was it probable that such could
have been the case? 1t would require
proof as convincing as Holy Writ to show
| that il was so. It had been shown that
she was affectonate towards him; aud was
IL nrobable that she should have separated,
a stranger in strange place, from her only
protector in moment of temporary anger!
# had been said that he Colonel Young)
was the most infatuated man in the world
in regard to this case but could it be
called infatuation for him to say that
woman did not separate from her husband
on a public street under these circum-
stances9 They had walked on quietly
down the street from the Virginia House.
/ Iri -. ,,,,od l,u Mra Winfrao's thew