The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1867-07-08

FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS.
The examination Of Phillips was prompt
ly resumed at ii o'clock on Saturday
morning. MesSrS. Marmadukc Johnson
and A. B. Guigon, counsel for the pri-
| soncr, came into court few minutes after
II o'clock, having just returned from Il
visit TO the spot upon which the body OF
the murdered woman was found. Mr..
Thomas, who, at the solicitation Of the
friends Of the prisoner, is still engaged for
the defence, requested the court TO sub
puna five new witnesses in behalf Of the
prisoner. The officers of the court were
ordered TO secure their attendance at II
o'clock this morning.
Mr. Albert Turner was the first witness
examined. His evidence, as at the exami-
nation before Justice Nc;tIcs, mainly re-
lated 10 the arrival OF Phillips at MIR. Tur-
ncr's on the Sunday before the body was
found The accused was ut our house on
Monday, but not from Tuesday morning
until Wednesday night. | do not Iemcm-
Der the circumstances connected with bis
arrival from Chesterfield on Thursday, but
know that he was with rs on that night.
do not recollcct hearing him make any
remarks about the dead body. | saw him
on his way to town on Monday at about II
o'clock. He was driving our d@rh jat
horse TO & single buggy.
George ". Turner testified ] saw the
accused at the pO>t-oilice in the middle Of
the week previous to the murder. On
Monday, February 25th, saw him again
in Richmond. He was i'll a buggy, aud
said he was going 70 Nr. William Il.
P!ca>antsS, Oh Church Hill, for my sister.
Ga Thursday went ,lown wiii ihimio Chc--
ter!ictd 70 look at a farm which wc desired
10 rent. We did not 20 on De-. Dorset :
farm. as had heard from the Doctor that
il wa, already rented. We reached home
uaat night few moments before the body
was brought 10 the house. / went in IL
look at the murdered woman, bat did
not know her. On lie next day
went - town with ,he accused. When
wa ,,artrd hn told ne that -" w8- guir z
TO see some i2Ji,Grthaj Dight at l'riddy's.
had heard that Phillips was Il married
man. bus never asked BIN aDout ii. | had
been told in confidence b. my father, IL
February, l6G6, that he was married.
Cross-eXamned ! WAS living in Rich
moud at the time the body was found. /
always bad high opinion Of the cha
racter ot Phillips. Had known him for Il
long time, and always thought him 4
youa@ man Of a kind and accommodating
disposition.
Witness then, in reply TO questions ol
Mr.. Johnson, repeated The account oi' the
| incident related before Justice Ncttlcs.
| The prisoner did not answer some quc,-
ton, which were addressed to him by the
witness while they were in their chamber.
After he came to he'd he aScri5cd as a
reason that hc was saying his prayers.
Mir. Johnson: Did You ever hear other
wise than through a marriage notice in the
papers that Mr.. Phillips was married.
Witness: Yes, sir, through my father.
| | heard the notice read aloud. 1t an
nGunCed the marriage Q! j. Jctcr Phillips
! to & lady whose name ! do not remember.
This was in the latter part Of July or early
in August, 1868.
To Mr.. Young: My unmarried sister
read The notice aloud. There were at the
time some comments about it. Some one
remarked that it was the same name as
| that of .Ietor. He was not living with us
| at that time. / never asked MIN whether
lie was the person, because it was npnc OF
nv business. The notice was published
in the Dispatch.
This is probably a mistake, A. the pub
lication Of the UiSpGtci, was suspended
from April sd 10 December 9th, lcG5.-
Reporter
Mr. Young Through what other sources
did vour father learn Of the marriage ofthe
accused
Mr.. johnson raised a decided objection
to this question. The son could not, he
contcudcd, testify as 10 the father means
Of discovering fact. Especially Is this
truc when the father is in court and can
be brought upon the stand. Further, the
Commonwealth could not contradict her
own witnesses.
Mr. Young said that if the question was
irregular, the defence alone were response
be. and called the attention OF the court
10 ;he fact that Mr.. Johnson had hrSt IN
nriraA of the witness whether his father
had learned through other sources than The
papcrs of the probable marriage OF PhlI-
|ips. The Commonwealth merely followed
the lead of the defence. If Testimony
has been elected, unchallenged by cross
examination, it is perfectly competent 10
rcYxamno the witness upon the points
in question.
Mr.. Johnson rcioined, earnestly urging
his point, aud the CUuIt ruled that Sir.
George Turner Gather of the witness)
should himsellbe examined As to his sources
Of information concerning the marriage.
Mr.. George Turner was then recalled
Mr.. Young: Your son has stated, Ar.
Turner, THAI you had certain sources ol
information concerning the reported mar
rjaee of Jcter Phillips. VIII you state
what those sources were.
Mr.. Turner was about TO answer, "heh
Mr.. johnson begged the Court to instruct
the witness not to relate anything concern
iuy the marriage unless It was heaEd Il! 'he
presence of the prisoner.
Mr.. Young, then, 10 avoid delay, chahsel
his method Of inquiry, and the witness re-
sumed
The letter to which referred Yesterday
was directed to the accused. do no,
think nc was then at my house, or s'oula
have delivered it to him. | do not re-
mpmb,r whose name was signed to II. l
looked over the letter, bat found It very
hard to read. There was al lnltiai ic,tcl
ot The close, which think was either NJ oi
W. ;.