The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1869-03-04


sion of the court was by law limited to twenty
days-a period which expires on Saturday
next The Court was willing, however, to
allow the counsel several hours for consulta-
ton.
Mr.. Onld remarked that 1t waa doubtful
whether the session Of the court was really
limited, as his Honor seemed to think. The
act of January, 1867, allowed the circuit
courts to hold over in certain cases.
The Court was unwilling 10 run any risk of
the kind in the trial OF q case of homicide /;
nor was he willing to express positive opin-
ion on the question just now.
Mr.. Bundy said the circuit courts were
limited by eyents-this court by anumber Of
days. tssi
Mr.. Ould cited the act of March, 1857. to
prove that the same law governed both kinds
of courts. "a.
After some further discussion, the court lat
half past o'clock) took recess until P. NJ.
NIGHT SESSION.
At o'clock the court met !; but at the re-
quest of Mr.. Ould delay of fifteen minutes
longer was allowed the counsel for the ac-
cused. In the mean time Mr.. Johnson who
had been confined to his house all day under
medical treatment, made his appearance in
court. EHIEE
that MIR. j. NJ. Hanna be recalled. 1t
was ascertained that he was not in attend
ance; and the Court suggested that another
witness be called.
Mr.. Johnson: If your Honor please we
cannot get along without Mr.. Hanna at this
stage of the proceedings.
Mr.. Onld: We cannot proceed until lie has
been examined.
The Court directed that q rule be issued
against Mr.. Hanna, returnable Immediately.
A sergeant was dispatched at once with n
rule, but in q few minutes the witness came
in.
]. ". HANNA RECALLED.
Mr.. Hanna was shown copy Of the South
Mr. Ould Mr.. Hanna, in your testimony
the other day you referred to certain issue
of the Southern Opinion. Is this one of the
Issue spoken of? ...
Witness: That is the paper.
Mr.. Ould: You also referred to a Ger tain
article. Will you show US that artcle7
Witness What article do you refer to?
Mr.. Ould: refer to the one you referred to-
The witness then pointed out an article
about certain members of the Grant family,
which appeared in the Opinion of the 2lst of
November, 1865.
Mr.. Johnson then took the paper and said :
With the permission of the Court, will now
proceed TO read the article. 1t is headed " An
Elopement."
The Court: Wait moment, Mr.. johnson
Have she gentlemen on the other side anything
to say rs to the introduction of this newspa-
per testimony
Mr.. Bundy said that when something had
before been said about the Introduction of
this article, the representatives of the Com
monwealth had signifed their entire willing
ness to let it be introduced by the defence at
the proper time in justification of the homi-
eide. They did not therefore object at all.
The Court: We are not aware of any rule
of evidence by which this newspaper article
can be introduced.
Mr.. johnson remarked that this was the
first time he had ever known the Court to OBJ
ject when opposing counsel had agreed to
allow the Introduction of certain testimony.
He continued at some length, incidentally
remarking that while the defence held that
Mr. Grant did not kill MIR. Pollard, and
chought that there was nothing to sustain the
tharge, rs some minds might be SO curiously
constructed rs to believe that the accused did
commit the act, it was thought best to show
that even if Mr.. Grant did kill MIR. Pollard,
he was perfectly justifiable The article
which he held in his hand was the fortiflca
ton behind which his client was intrenched.
1t was an article written by Mr.. Hanna, and
published in paper of which Mr. Pollard
was the responsible editor-an article the pur-
port of which it would not be proper for him
in this manner to give to the jury: but he
would say that az did no less than attack that
which every woman holds most dear, and
which every man stands ready to defend, ,-fe.
male virtue.
Does your Honor Ito the Court know what
article 1t is?
The Court: We have q general idea, but
have no judicial knowle6cn of it,
Mr.. Johnson, resuming, remarked that II
had been proved that the article was written
by Mr.. Hanna.
MI Gilmer: No, sir; no, sir.
The Court: We have no recollection of its
being proved.
Mr. johnson: Well sir, if it was not, we
can prove it now.
After some conversation across the bar Mr..
Johnson asked the witness what was his con-
nection with the paper.
Witness: was associate editor Of the paper.
Mr.. Johnson: Who wrote that article?
Witness: did.
Mr.. Ould: What was the relation of Henry
Rives Pollard TO that article?
Witness The facts first came to my know
ledge, and l told Mr.. Pollard about them,
giving the names, etc. He told me to get all
the facts, and gave me the name of person
from whom they could be obtained. l got
them, wrote the article, showed it to him, and
he said it was every good" suggested
some notifications, which Mr.. Pollard refused
TO make.
Mr. Ould: Did that article refer TO any
member of Mr.. Grants family?
Witness: 1t did relate to one member of 1t.
Mr.. Johnson What were the notifications
suggested by you and rejected by Mr.. Pol
lard
Witness: I suggested the erasure Of the
name.
MIR. johnson: OF what name?
Witness: Miss Mary rant
Mr.. Johnson: What did Mr.. Pollard do with
regard to that?
Witness: He declined to leave the name out.
Mr.. Johnson now claimed that the defence
had laid a foundation for the introduction OF
the article.
The Court thought it could be admitted only
in explanation of the condition of the parties.
Even then it should be read, if possible, from
the original manuscript.
Mr.. johnson: MIR. Hanna, have you the
manuscript?
Witness: No, sir have not.
Mr. Johnson was then allowed to read the
article to the jury.
ces with Mr.. Pollard about this article. When
the ma nuscript was submitted to him he de.
cliued to leave out the names, saying: "Wher
they publish me they don't leave out my
name" When we read the proof made the
same suggestion, and he again refused to leave
out the names, assigning the same reason.
Mr.. Gilmer objected to the introduction Of
tes timony about what occurred between MIR
Pollard and Mr.. Hanna precedent to the pub
lication of the article. To prove the provo
cation was well enough but what had the &c.
cused to do with the private conversations
which it was now sought to make public? HI
felt that his duty to the man who, walking
along one of the most public streets OF thl!
city, was shot dead, rs he claimed, by the pri
soner at the bar, required him to interpose III
objection to this illegal evidence. Inc Com
monwealth was willing to throw the broao
light of truth over the whole transaction, bu
was not willing to have dragged into the cas-
matters entirely irrelevant, Of which th'
accused knew nothing.
Mr. Ould claimed that it was perfectly le
gitimate to introduce any testimony bearing
upon the relations Of the parties TO eacl
other, whether OF goodwill or il.will, ans
that such evidence should 60 before the jur.
for its enlightenment. It is the first and bes
OF all evidence, and as such is brought on
here-not for the purpose of casting unneces
sary discredit upon the dead, nor to expose hi
faults or foibles, If he had any, but for highe
and holier work-to do justice to the living.
The Court said that the facts alluded b
might be taken as evidence If the deceaset