The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1867-05-15
THE CASE OF HAYWARD.
FURTHER CONTINUATION.


Mr.. Sands, counsel for the accused, said
to his Honor that he had carefully exam
ined the "Guide," which he supposed was
resume of the criminal law, and had
failed to find therein the offence with
which the accused was charged. He asked
his Honor to point out the page on which
it could be found.
His Honor replied that he was not in the
habit of finding law for gentlemen who APP
peared to defend parties charged with
crime. He would say this, that the charge
against the prisoner did not amount to
felony under the statute law, but was a
misdemeanor under the common law. The
offence with which he was charged was
stated on the face Of the warrant under
which he was arrested.
Mr.. Sands reioined in a very excited
manner, and said that it was the first
time he had ever known magistrate to
refuse to show a prisoner the law under
which he was held for examination.
Mr.. Mayo said that at the proper time
the law would be shown the counsel, and
that it was unnecessary to continue this
discussion.
Mr.. Sands" Very well, sir"
After some delay, DR.. Brock, of the Er,
aD,iner, was called to the stand, and stated
that he was present at the meeting at the
African church on Friday night. He re-
ported the first part of the meeting, and
left before Mr.. Hayward had concluded
his speech. The first portion Of it, con
cerning the opinion expressed by the
speaker that colored people were better
than the whites, was reported correctly in
the Dispatch. That report contained sub
stantially what he said. Witness did not
hear that portion of the speech in which
he spoke of high carnival" here after
Judge Underwood left.
Mr.. O'Conner, of the New York Herald,
said he was at the African church on Fri
day night last, at the meeting at which
HAYWARD spoke. Witness was shown the
report in the Dispatch said he had read
it, aud it was very accurate report all the
way through.
Counsel asked whether he thought the
accused intended to incite colored people
to acts of violence, insurrection, and war,
against white people?
Witness replied that he considered his
remarks highly infammatory under the
circumstances, considering that serious
difficult had occurred here the day before.
In answer to question, he said that be
did not think the speaker intended to in
cite to violence at that particu time, but
that the effects of his speech, he thought,
would lead to violence at some future time.
He heard him ask the audience whether
they would not protect the life Of the " IL
lustrious Underwood"
Witness heard all the speech, and thought
the substance of the speech was fairly re-
ported.
Many questions were asked as to the
manner of reporting speeches and re-
porting generally. He was also required
to give his definition of the word "carni-
VAL"
Witness considered the remarks Of Mr..
Hayward infammatory. He thought that
the crowd present could easily have been
excited that night. Thought Hayward de-
sired the colored people to protect the
life of Underwood. Thought that the re-
marks were calculated to cause disturb
ance at some future day, but that he
wished to avoid any collision at present.
Witness gave the definition of the word
carnival, and was not able to Judge
whether or not the audience present un-
derstood it. He had met good many
colored people of intelligence at the Afri-
can church they were, u general thing,
more intelligent than the white people he
met there. He inferred from the general
tenor of remarks that the speaker wished
them to withhold from violence while their
leaders were here. This was polite for
the leaders. Did not think that there was
any need for leaders in the city.
The evidence for the prosecution being
closed, the witnesses for the defence were
sworn.
John Hawxhurst, being sworn, testified
that he was native of New York, and
had lived in Virginia twenty-one years.
Was present at the meeting at African
church. Large crowd there. Heard Hay
wards speech. Read report in papers
next day, and thought that the words re-
ported were very near the same words as
were spoken. He did not think the pur-
port of the words were the same as might
be construed. Was not certain that the
speaker said "you can do what you please
when CO." An inhammatory speech that
night would have done great deal OF
danger. Was at the Ne,o Nation Office on
Thursday evening. Several colored per-
sons were there, and Mr.. Hayward.
Colored persons were excited about what
had been done that day, and Hayward
was dissuadng them from violence, tell
ing them that if they were treated
with injustice they would be pro-
tected by the military. Mr.. Hayward
declined to 60 over to the meeting
on Church Hill. Several persons, to-
gether with the witness, went over,
and he heard some expressions OF dlssatls-
faction towards Hayward, and expressions
of doubt as to his sincerity in their inte.
rest. Lindsey was among those present
when Hayward made use of the remarks
at the Ne,c Nation Office. Thought that
Hayward's remarks were rather strong tc
have much effect. He did not think that
HAYWARD intended by his remarks at the
| African church to excite acts of violence
He thought that Hayward, having lost the
confidence of the colored people, wished
to regain it. Witness was an original
abolitionist, and considered himself frieno
to the colored people. lie did not attaci
the Importance to the words at the time
they were made that had since been gwen
though he considered them unfortunate
Thought that though Hayward had no IN
tention of producing riot, they might be Sc
construed. Witness was formerly United
States district tax commissioner, haC
gotten $4,000 salary, and gave s5o,OO'
bond. The meeting at the Ne,o Ndtt0l
Office was accidental. The colored people
present wished to get some one of thei
| leaders to appeal to the leaders at Wash
ington in their behalf. They were no
satisfied with the result of the riot, aut