The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1867-07-04


January, 1863. He married my sister,
Mary Emily Pitts, on the 18th of July,
1868. He remained with her only fort
night, and was then absent until February,
1866, stating that he had been very i'll at
the house Of his uncle, in Goochland. He
then spent few weeks with US, and left
again. He next visited Us in July, 1866,
arriving two days after the anniversary of
his wedding day.
Mr.. Johnson objected 10 this evidence,
on the ground that the circumstances de-
tailed were not a part Of the res JnSt9 OF
the case. He could not believe that it was
cf any use tC bring into court history OF
the matrimonial affairs OF . century
What had all this to do with an alleged
homicide, What has a marriage two years
ago 10 do with murder committed last
February! IN conclusion, he again re-
vcrted to his belief in the innoccnsc of the
accused, aud referring to remarks which
had been made by outsiders concerning
his "tcmerity" in asserting his conscien-
tiOus belief, he repeated the statement, de-
clariug that sooner would he allow his
right arm to be torn from its socket than
defend the prisoner il there was any rca-
son 10 think that he did commit the OUT
rageous crime with which he was charged.
MIR. Young thought the idea that
witnesses who saw the deed must DC
brought forward to prove murder RI
diculous Que. This could rarely be done.
The facts which Miss Pitts had stated
proved The connection OF the prisoner
with the murdered woman, and he was
nh ,},uIyilIDpIf
the witness was Interrupted. When, with
Mr.. Drnkcr. he had commenced at the
other end, objection had also been made.
Where, then, shall the Commonwealth
commence lie contcnded that the evil
dcncc concerning the marriage was per-
tectly competent testimony.
The court deciding that the testimony
was legal and pertinent, the witness re-
sumed The accused left in Il week or
two, and remained absent until about
Christmas. He then stayed with us until
the 18th Of February. lie said he was
going TO Scrry,
Mr.. Johnson objected also to the admiS-
sion Of this evidence. THIS declaration Of
intention was irrelevant. Suppose the ac-
cuscd had told lalscholds. He is not on
trial for perjury. What has all this to do
with the murder?
Mr. Young briefly replied, dwelling upon
the arguments which he had before adj
vanc.d and the court decided that the
point was net well taken.
Miss Pitts resumed: 4 letter was re-
ccivcd from Phillips about three weeks
after his departure with my sister. do
aoT know where this letter is, but think it
was lost.
Mr. Pitts called: Tie letter Of which
my sister speaks was addressed to ne.
D.iiceat search has been made, but not
Gnding il we suppose that il has been lost.
Mr.. } ohnnon insisted upon tAc rroduc-
ton or the letter. \ detail of It's contents
lie believed 10 be illegal testimony.
The court decided that rs the letter was
in al! probability lost, the statement Of the
witness concerning lis contents could be
admitted.
| Miss Pitts, rcsuming, stated that the first
| letter spoke Of the arrival Of tac accused
with his wife in Richmond, Of their So
journ in the city, and subsequent depart
urc Tor Dr.. Dorset,s farm.
Ir. Young.-Did the letter mention the
name of any ncighbor or describe the To-
caIi;y of DorSct;s farm !
Mr. Johnson objected 10 this rs :, " lead
ing question: and the point was argued at
length by the counsel. The court at length
ruled that as the question was suggestive
Of the answer desired tie point was well
taken.
Miss Pitts then described minutcly the
clothes worn by her sister on the morning
OF her departure from home. This de-
scrip,iou coincidcG with that given at the
preliminary examination. In addition she
stated that Mrs. Phillips wore ga!tcr shoes
and homc-knit stockings. Jeter wouldn't
let her carry but. two dresses, rs he said nc
could get her plenty when they got to
Richmond.
At this point the court announced that
the hogr fixed Tor the adjournment had al
ready arrived, and therefore continued the
| case until II o'clock this morning.
The examination Yesterday was some
what tcdious--thc evidence ciicited before
the committing magistrate being the same
points OF law discussed By the counsel.
| The reporters duty to Silt from the tcSti-
mony all that is new was rather trouble
some one, but it is believed that the task
has been accomplished.
From present appearances, II Is reason
able to suppose that many days will bc
consumed in the trial: but IS t,rentY-one
new Witnesses for the prosecution are yet
to be heard, we are justified il expecting
many fresh developments.