The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1869-03-05

tspr e1st. The acrnsed came to my otice ana
s,rad I'd eas the Southern Opinion IshoWea !,
10 him, ard he read the araele. heasl,,sI ,a ~
nravent it's publication. 1etold MIN that
ppau,d have done SO with money, and related
! 10 him the circumstances OF my ~ ,
with Mr.. Pollard. He had been out OF the cry
since Monday the 16ths and returned On Tue
| syeninF that shnye named. /
flross.eTamined by Mr. Brndy: lam pretty
srre that Mr.. Grant left town ON the ibtii,a re
| soid to me on the 21st that he womb nola .nH
proprietor of the paper responsible ,lpr Lne
article When he expressed surprise lhht
| something had appeared in tne seHan -,
| Oniufo, he referred TO the fact OF ms SIS tsi
departure from the city, which he naa Ie;,t ~
would be rnentonedin the papers ahu !. i ne
| had told him thought could preseh :, 90
Ifear that her departure woIld;oe mao d ili.Ls
| tor fur notification was because OF tne lacs
that she had left without the Rno"leuEI "
| her friends and family: There WIS The
| else that led TO this fear on oii p.. o not
facts about Miss Grants departure "eIe n.y.
| n matter of notorietv, but were known "
Row DR. Moore Dr., Brock, MI SnieIuS' ~ "
route agent of the Express company an Iii
hars one or two others OUTSIDE oi tne n Nod
Something was said about 1t in paP'f go ~
tho T;terory pnstin,e publshe ed, think, Oh Tue
| W,edn esday before the Opinion appeareu'
6Ir- Storar here repeated the account PR,
| yiousfy given of his several interviews III ,i
Mr.. Pollard. In all these, nus" Tho rrnth
ny plotes .a,art. In the article. He did not
atonv time make distinct oNer 10 SUPP
| the article for n pecunlaIy go, ~.
except wh en- he proposed 70 se,. s;IareJ ,ho+ :,
An in terest in the paper. -.
II To Mr.. ouid Miss Mary Grant is sister OF
| the accused. 800 r- Giant, varv
- s+otan,ent of the circumstances OF my
in+erviews with Mr.. Pollard. HIS response
u,ns that he should hold him personally re-
| sponslo!e t,r
Mr.. NJ. f. Mcdowell was then called, ana in,
sworn He said :: I am resident OF fhlhuei-
nbi,.. Frequently visit Richmond, and an N
ttimately acquainted with Mr.. Grant ana MS
family. I,-. INV,
Mr.: johnson: Will you tell the Court any
| thing YOU know OF Miss GRANTS '4siI W ~
| ndelphia in Novem Der last ;., $40
Tha Court: What has that to do villa tne
case? A., o,,o-ro
Mr.. johnson We wish to repel the charge
made in that article, having been challenged
nv the counsel on the other side TO 90 So
The Court: We do not recognize these chal-
lenges across the bar. Put TINS quesuoh III
writing, and we will hear you upon IL. .,,;r
Mr.. Ould said they wished TO prove pn tilis
1vitness that the visit of Miss Grant TO Ihlla-
delphia was not clandestlnc. :1
Mr. Rnndy explained that he had not said
clandestine Uisit, but clandestine dep
Mr.. Onld said he proposed to snow mat
there was nothing in this visit to excite even
the possip OF Il tea table. and to trace her
every step from the day OF her departure 10
the day of her return TO Rlchmoha. he
would prove this by one "it"ee"' '''" III :"
very short time.
MIR Johnson urged that common humanity
demanded that they should be allowed 10
nrove where this young lady went, who were
her associates, and whose society sne accepted
during her absence from Richmond
MT. Ciilmer and Mr.. Bundy both explained
to the court that it was far from their inten :
ton TO throw the most remote olScredilaoie
reflection upon Miss Mary Grant, or upon
any other young lady whose CHARACTER IKE
hers was above suspicion.
The Court could see no legal proprlety in
the uues ton as the falsity Of the article did
not aggravate the proyocation. OrdinaTliy, u
man would be excessively angry II he Knew
such a publication TO be true; but II he knew
il TO be false, he would treat it with con-
tempt. ,,, 800 =.
Mr.. Johnson Such man would be one in
a million. ,.,-
fuepced if the libel affected your VIE, your
daughter, or your sister
The Court: Yes, sir; its influence would be
| lust the same. The question cannot be asked
The defence reserved IN exception TO this
decision. ~
| Here Mr.. Ould announced that the defence
would probably in introduce no more witnesses,
but asked ten minutes for consultation with
his associates.
|
| the consultation was the announcement mat
! the testimony for the defence Was concluded.
| REBUTTING TESTIMONY.
| Mr.. Hanna was then recalled for the Com
| monveaIth, and stated that - the article y was
| written on the Wednesday before Its pubiica-
| ton.
| Mr.. Rundy then stated that tho Common
| wealth would here rest her case.
| Mr. Ould then stated that owing to the
length Of time already occupied III the trial Of
| the cause, the minutenesS OF the examination
| of witnesses, b. which the evidence was
| already fixed on the minds of the jury, he pro-
| posed now, on behalf of the defence, and with
| the consent of the Commonw wealth, to submit
| the case without argument.
! Mr. Bundy thought that the case should
| certainly be argued, and stated that the re-
| representatives. OF the Commonwealth would
| occupy very little time with what they had to
| say.
| tice he had never known such proposition 10
| he made without previous consultation be-
| tween the opposing counsel. The law and
| gravity of the case demand argument.
| The Court wished TO know whether the de-
| fence had in tended 10 state that so far - they
| were concerned The case should be submitted
| without argument.
| Mr. Johnson: II the Commonwealth 5 at
| torney declines the proposition, Of course we
are not going TO let the gentlemen OF the othc:
| side have the argument all on their side.
The Court: Well how many speeches are
| we to have!
| Mr.. Oud: Three on our side, sir.
| The Court: We would Xix" TO have three
| of the speeches TO night, il possible
| Mr.. Bundy suggested Il recess until o clock
| which was agreed to.
| EVENING SESSION.
| At the opening OF the court in the afternoon
| quite Il large crowd was in attendance. After
| some little delay, the Commonwealth attOr-
| nav OOane Ell the case for the defence.
| ARGUMENT FOR THE PROSECUTION.
Mr. Bundy, by way of introduction, assured
| the Jury that no man officially connected with
| the trial more regretted the part he had &c
| take than himself. But his duty TO the Com
| monwealth, and his sense of justice TO the
| memory of the dead, left him no volltion
| He then gave q detailed statement OF the
| circumstances attending the homicide, the
| position of the effects and arms in the
| room on Fourteenth street, and claimed from
! these that the crime was fixed beyond doubt
| upon the prisoner At the bar. At O'ciOCl
| Major Clinton had left the prisoner ut the
| bar in his room, and ut 10 o'clock the de.
| ceased was shot dead from one OF the upper
| windows of the same building. Dir. Bundy
next reviewed the testimony regarding the
/ wounds received by the deceased, and entered
! into the relation they bore 20 the alleged
position from which the shot was fired.
These were the naked, hideousfacts Who
killed Henry Rives Pollard? Within the
limits Of this State who had motive to kill
| Henry Rives Pollard? The gentlemen OF the
| defence had thought proper 10 disclose in tbs
| fullest manner the motive of the accused. a
| few days before the homicide the accused
| after having read 4 certain article in The
Southern 0pnion had in the presence Of n wit
ness said that he intended to hold the editor
| of that paper 10 a responsibility.
He next entered into the theory of the de
fence, which he claimed presented strange
and almost unparalleled features. In reading
| the article of the 2lst Of November TO eStab
lish the relations between the prisoner and
| the deceased, what did the defence show
| Taken in connection with the statement Of