The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1868-06-27
LOCAL MATTERS.
THE PHILLIPS MURDER TRIAL.
ErGH HI D A X.
ABSTRACT OF THE EVIDENCE.

81 - y =
ABSTRACT OF THE EVIDENCE.
The court was opened at half-past 9
AN. :, =.
George Turner was recalled, and testified
as to the time accused came to live with
him. his evidence being substantially the
same as that previously given by his son,
George W. Turner, on the same point. He
was not at home when the dead body was
discovered, but on reaching home that eve
ming received message informing him Of
the fact, and requesting him to send for it,
which he did. Accused wasfat his house
that night, and was at supper with the
family, where the finding of the body was
not d fsubject of special conversation; nor
was ii spoken of at all, to his recollection.
Don't remember of being in the company
of the accused at all that night. Went next
morning after breakfast, while the accused
was in Che house, to look at the body. Re-
garded the accused as a single man, but
had seen letter, did not know where
from or to whom addressed, which gave
reason for some suspicion on the subject:
Suppose he received the letter, and neg
lected to deliver it, and carried it in
his pocket until it was worn out. 1t
was addressed to the prisoner. Don't know
what became of it. Has no recollection
about it. Supposes he saw the contents of
it. Don't know who wrote it. Part Of the
letter he could not read. Accused was at
his house on several occasions during the
week preceding the finding Of the body.
Never gave him any reason to believe ne
was married. On the Monday preceding
the finding of the body witness requested
accused to come to town in buggy for Miss
Turner. Think he drove bay horse, and
used OH old buggy. Miss Turner did not
return with him. Don't know whether he
drove bay or cream-c olored horse. Ac-
cused was perfectly familiar with the coun-
try in the vicinity Of the place where the
body was found. ~.
Miss Indiana Turner was next called :
She had seen d letter addressed to the ac-
cused in 1866, which first induced her to
believe he was a married man but does
not know what became of it. 1t was in
possession of her father addressed to the
accused) and signed /" En-" She testified
as to the time the prisoner was in her
fathers employ-her testimony on this
point being similar in all respects to pre-
ceding testimony. Witness wrote to En-, F"
and afterwards received letter from her.
The contents of these letters witness COM
municated to accused. The receipt of that
letter induced her to believe that he was
married.
In reference to the admissibility of testi-
mony tending to show the purport of this
correspondence, counsel for the defence OBJ
jected, and Mr.. johnson delivered an able
argument against it.
Mr.. Young, for the prosecution, argued
to show that the evidence was in all respects
admissible.
Judge Crump replied, showing that
throughout the trial the defence had ac-
knowledged the fact of marriage between
J the accused and Miss Pitts, but that the
objectof the question propounded by the
Commonwealth whether witness had
/" communicated to accused the contents Of
the correspondence, and what his deport-
ment was on that occasion, was not legi-
innate evidence. There was no objection
to the question, /" Did you communicate to
accused the fact that you had reason to be-
4lieve him married person, and what was
his apartment on that occasion?" The
original question was calculated to bring
into this cause extrinsic testimony, which,
while in point of fact it had no bearing on
the case, yet was calculated to excite pre-
fiudice against the accused.
IF the correspondent was produced in
court no objection would be made to it,.
The court decided that the contents of
the letters, so far as communicated to the
accused, was admissible testimony
Witness has in possession at home the
letter she received from En- = in reply to
hers. Thinks she communicated to &c
cused q portion of the contents Of that let
ter, and said she would show tito him If he
desired it. He exhibited no desire to see
it. That WAS in June, 1866. He was; then
staying at witnesses fathers. Communi-
Gated with him on the SUBJ ect at the house
9of Mr.. Peasants. Wrote on piece of pa
per and handed it toshim. Requested him
to return the note, but he did not. He did
not reply to it. He was not in the habit Of
visiting witness when she was away from
home. Saw him at home only in the
presence Of the family. Remembers
OF having seen him but once after
he left her father's house until the
trial began. On Sunday, February q 7th,
was at home. Was not in company
with prisoner ct any time during the day.
Was in Richmond from the Saturday before
the body was found until 18th of March.
Understood that her father had sent for her
on Monday, 18th February. Was thers
Visiting at several different places. Was