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

o'clock. This abb was monstrous abb
1t had been said that he had denounced
Batterman because he was Yankee. He
had also denounced Miles and Oscar Phil
lips, who were of Us, and not Yankees. I
the counsel knew that Batterman wa.
making a statement in conflict with thai
Of the prisoner, why did they not stoI
him Of such was this abb; conceived iI
sin and born in iniquity, it had beer
brought forward to cover this monstrou:
crime.
Had there been a separation between
the prisoner and his wife he would have
had but two ways of getting to Miles Phil
lips's. The most proper route would haye
been to have retraced his steps up Frank.
lin street: and in that event he would have
met with Batterman and Miss Frayser
who, according to testimony, were walk
ing in the same direction. Had he climbed
the heights and gone over to Clay street
how could he have gotten to Miles Phil
lips's by twilight? Had he separated, it
would have taken some time some parley
must have taken place. And the Won
der was that he should have mentioned
it to no one that he should have kept it
silent. Had she been Separated from him
in the manner urged by the defence, they
had the bare possibility of her being picked
up by some one of those mysterious per-
sonages who infest our streets seeking
some new victim. But had she sought
,protection she would have found it, even
among the most abandoned Of her sex.
The attempt to prove an abb by tie in-
PRODUCTION of Batterman was monstrous in
itself, and it would require the most con-
elusive and positive evidence to prove it.
Colonel Young then proceeded to show
the improbabiity of Miles Phillips's being
able to locate the date of the prisoners
being at his house upon the date of the
distress warrant. The testimony of Mr..
Meanley and High Constable Crump had
shown that he was entirely mistaken in
his endeavor to connect and fix the dates,
and consequently there was no reliance to
be put in this statement. Mr.. Oscar Phil
lips could only recall the date from the
fact that it was Sunday evening, and he
had taken a walk.
Suppose that this woman had been Sc
perated from him, would not a sense of her
desolate condition come over him in a very
short time afterwards, and would she not
have sought him again? She had not a
cent, not mouthful to eat, and what was
she to do but to return to her husband
and protector
He then read from Wills on alJis to
show the great weight that failure to
prove one should have, as being Of itself
suspicious circumstance.
The defence had attempted to prove
that the prisoner was not there on GER
tain night, and again that the offence was
not committed that night. That the crime
was committed on the night of the 18th of
February was his firm belief. All proofs
pointed to that fact. Suppose it had
rained before the body was placed on the
ground, would not some traces Of the
struggle have been left upon the ground
The marks upon the ground, the appear
ance of the clothes, and the statements Of
the medical gentlemen, pointed to that
night as the one on which the deed could
have been committed.
What follows upon the deed' The pr-
soner goes away, remains until inquiry IS
over, and returns. Then comes the tabr
cation about Dorsett's farm. If he had
separated from his wife in the city, as had
been stated, and did not Kill her, was it
natural that he should make no inquiries
after her? Here was the dead body of
his wife on the same place at which he
was living, and he did not go near it. Had
it been his dead dog or dead horse, it
would have been natural for him to
have shown some interest in the body.
But here was the dead body of a woman,
and he did not go near it. At the same
time lie was fabricating a story for her
family. And why, if he had not killed her,
needed he to have said that she was still
with him? She had deserted and gone
from him; and could he not have pro-
claimed that fact, to his shame and dis
grace. If, as had been urged, she did not
love him, here were the ready means Of
his proclaiming her shame and getting rid
of her. Had he not killed her, then, and
had she left him, as stated, no deception
would have been necessary with those who
knew that she was his wife.
There was another fact which told
volumes. In the previous examinations
Batterman had shown letter from the
prisoner to show that it did correspond
in handwriting with the others produced
in the case. No difference was found, and
in this examination the letter was missing.
If there had been any difference, it would
have been insisted upon, and the family
and friends would have been brought in to
prove it.
Facts that could not be gotten over
seemed to point to the guilt of the pri-
soner. a ligament that could not be sun
dered seemed to bind him to the corpse of
that woman. Now he would come to an
other point: The utter absence of any
other agent. Somebody took this woman
down there in the woods and shot her in
the head and killed her. The theory of
violation had been entirely abandoned.
If there had been any agent in this matter,
why did not the prisoner show where he
carried her? If there was any agent, he
knew it. There uaS no other agent.
Could not the law take its just infer
ences from the lack Of proof in this re-
spect? Had the prisoner acted openly and
fairly, and not with secresy with his wife,
then he might have said that he did not
nor could not have committed the deed.
The fact that he could have had no motive
for such deed, could it be proven, would
have removed mountains in his favor. He
must account for those letters in the face
of the facts proved. The defence had
complained that the prisoner had been
tracked even to his cell and prosecuted by
those who seemed determined to prove
him guilty. But nothing that had passed
between the prisoner aud others in his
cell had been introduced by him as evi-
dence against him. he had been called
the Hamlet of this case. If he were the
Hamlet, where was the Claudius who had
done away with the one nearest and dear
est to him. lie still lived, but the woman
was cold in death. Her lips were closed.