The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1867-11-19

ment that he intended to recognize this wife
| and carry her TO Surry with the fact that
although just from The presence of that wife,
| he concealed from Mrs. Crawford, his cousin
| and from Batterman, his most intimate
| friend, where he had been, who was with
him, and where he was going
His connection with the homicide Is fur ther
| demonstrated by the concealment Of her dis
| appearance. He has never yet given any ac-
| count OF the circumstances under which their
| parting took place. If not In evidence, he GER
| tainly could have stated where ana when
they separated. Would shea girl without n
protector-haSe left him in the street? Is IL
| probable that within few hours after the
| display OF affection to which allusion has
| already been made She should have deserted
h'm2 Where could ahe have gone to? What
reason had she to desert her natural pro-
| tector If she had thus deserted him,
] would ne not, rs z true husband, have
| followed her and entreated her to return to
| MS embrace? On the other hand, are we to
| entertain the monstrous supposition that he
| deserted her in the street, and then lesurely
walked over TO see his uncle, Miles Phillips,
| there Willing away the time in trifling con-
Yersation? Under such circumstances, would
| she not have appealed to the first man she
met, or have returned to her home and friends
| in the country? What did become of her {?
Why DW not this man tell where he left his
poor wife
cused with the murder is shown by his singu-
lar conduct on his return from Chesterfield.
Inc body OF an unknown woman was brought
| to the place where he was lodging. He knew
| that his wife was missing. He knew that he
could identify her. Why is it that no word
| falls from the lips Of the bereaved husband :?
| Why does he not look ut the dead body? Who
would not have done so, at least from mere GU
rlosity to see the victim OF the mys terious
| murder :? No remembers that he
| said anything at ell about it either
that night or when walking to town
with George Turner on the next day. One
| would imagine that the finding of the body
under such circumstances would have pro.
voked the liveliest conversation. This does
not seem to have been the case 81 iIr. Tur-
ner's. The accused on tie next day comes to
| town and engages in the festivities Mt Mr..
| Priddy's, dancing until morning hours. A
man who, having so recently lost his wife,
would do such = thing is capable of almost
any crime. The mere fact that she was unac-
countably missing should Fave been Sufficient
TO render him more circumspect.
At this point, the hour for recess having
arrived, the court took 4 recess until O'Clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The court re-assrmbled at az o'clock, and
Colonel Young resumed his argument.
| The prisoner, after the first time, declared
| his inten ton to visit Sutry tS MI. Turner af-
ter the discovery of the body. After comm z
TO Richmond and visiting the tableaux he
| started for Surry. He was struck with amaze
| ment that this circumstance, which should
tend conclusively to the guilt of the accused,
should be brought M as part OF the defence.
What inference could be gained from the fact
that rs soon rs the body was found he should
| leave for Surry? He went to his fathers, re-
maned there three or four Weeks until the
| first inquiries consequent upon the finding of
the body had subsided In the meantime
speculation was rife, and rumor stated that
Jennie Edwards or the Powhatan woman was
L
| scious of all these facts and when he found
| that the public agitation had subsidized, ana
| that no suspicion attached itself to him, he
returned to the city His first act after re.
| turning was to write letter on the 1th OF
| April TO the family, informing them that
| his wife was living, in order to prevent
| suspicion and blind them. In the nrst
| letter he spoke of having written TWO
| letters previously, and expressed regret ana
| astonshment that they had not been
| received. He spoke Of having requested the
| Doctor to mail papers, proving that some per-
| sons letter had been written which was pur-
ported to have been lost; for how was it pos
| sible that he should mention the Doctor with
| who the Doclur'' was. He also spoke of the
| farm. What farm? Surely the other letter
| explanatory OF these matters must have
| been written. He wrote " We often wish
| 10 be with you All. No one but MN
| self and wife ton the farm could have
been embraced in the term noe. he con
tinued eve send love To ;,ll 10th are well. 1t
| would be perceived that this letter had been
written Immediately upon his return from
Surry. Inquiries concerning the dead BODY
had been dssipated, ana no one had any sus-
| picon as to whose was the dead body. was IL
possible that this letter was written without
| a motive? What possible reason could there
have been for writing it but TO make her
| friends believe that his wife was Still living
| 1t was an evidence of q restless and disturbed
spirit that he should have done this; and 1t Is
precisely such 4 perturbed spirit that prompts
| the guilty TO allay suspicion by deception
| and bv an almost inevitable rule OF ProYl-
| dence it was the self-same spirit that lead TO
his discovery. 1t would not let him act rea-
| sonably 1t forced him TO impose upon others
| in such Il manner that his detection must al
most inevitably soon follow. more distinct
and positive determination to- deceive Than
| that apparent in the first letter could hardly
| be conceived. Fearing the first letter not SUN
| cient 10 :Ilay suspicion, the prisoner wrote
| other. On the l4th OF May the second letter
| was written, in which we find that the course
| of deception was persisted III from the 1ear
| that silence would arouse suspicion In the
| second letter he wrote that I'm would nave
written but for a sore finger. The doctor pro.
uounced it WhitloW. 1t was dreadful, ana
| lockiaw was threatened. Morphine and lauda.
mum was taken in order to quiet her. Could
| such 4 letter have been penned without some
deep and moving consideration? Could so
| much have been fabricated without Z; mo-
| tive? He was writing of his wife us
| though she were living by his side. IL
| the untrulhs obtained in the letter were To
| be weighed Systematically ana oeNberalely,
| could il be said that il was possible that 1hey
| were written without 4 purpose of deception
| He had concealed his marriage from the peo-
| ple here but there was no deception necessary
| with the family Of his wife but that OF show.
| ing that the woman who was Ill death sun
lived. What cause for concealmeht! ne
| had returned from the country. suspicion
had ceused, and in the pnblic mind IL
| would never be found out who the
| dead woman was. twas evident that he was
preparing for the demise OF his vile by natu-
raj causes Some deception was necessary by
which inquiry would be forever stlled on
| the part OF the family. He would subsequent T.
| ly announce the death OF his wife 1T the SICK
| iy place of the Doctor" Conscious ina,
| inquiry would be made us To the relics she mao
left the prisoner had preserved her clothes Ht
| was preparing then for her death, ana saSeo
her clothes 10 show the evidences OF hel
death The family could get no clue 10 tne
real cause of her death. Inquiries htd ceased
| the thing had died out, the woman had been
| buried and all evidences of the manner OF hei
death had been concealed. =, -.
| The connection of the accused with TINS
| body is also shown by his conduct at the Time
| of his arrest He was told that lie was Ut
| rested for the murder of his wife, and he re-
| piled that he never had q wife, ana repeated
| the denial he made no reply wheh the olneel> t
incurred as 10 his possession OF her ciolnes
| These false statements must DC cois ,i - I -
among the most conclusive proofs of his gullt
| If he was merely confused and astounded a
the moment, why has he not ,S subsequently, av w.
knowledged his marriage. The course OF 81
| innocent man would have been different. III
would have agreed that he had wife, and ex
nlained the circums tances OF their separation
! The fact that explanation has been mao
| nroyes that none can be maze "hlcn "oui'
| ap,and ,he test of criticism and investigation
The The ordinary motives of self-preservatloi .;'
| shonld have induced this man TO give the tru'
| account of what has occurred, a!tnousn n! ny
may not have been able to sustain IL Dy pro-" proc
| But his action upon TINS pollt - eonei'.en ,.