The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1869-03-06
THE GRANT-P0LLARD TRIAL
ARGUmEsT FOR THE DE- DEFENCE. ra.s,at:
PROLONGED SESSION OF THE COURT.


| bracing- six points of law, which he desired
the Court to give to the jury .,..5s '.ra savae
The defence objected, and the Court reserved
| the decision r. i5 1861 -. tt.'@'1' sF @"
Mr.. Johnson commenced by reminding his
Honor and the jury that the counsel for the
defendant did not desire to speak 1T all, being
willing to rely entirely, after the mass of evil
dence laid before them, upon the intelligence
of n jury carefully and impart tally selected.
! 1t was their intention TO submit the case with
out a single word. This proposition was de-
clined by the prosecution for reasons which he
would not question, and thus he found him
self addressing the jury. After alluding to
his ill health, he stated his intention calmly
and dlspassionately to consider the case, and
| to ask the twelve men before him to bring in
n verdict Of g not gnilty." He noticed present
representatives. of the deceased, connected
with him by ties of nature, and feeling a natu-
raj interest in the trial Of this cause. To them
he would say that he hoped they would be
considerate enough to remember his position,
and not take any offence if he should say
| thing unauthorized by the evidence, and if he
said everything that the evidence did autho-
riZe.
MIR. Johnson then stated the positions taken
by the defence. They held
First. That there was no legal, adequate, or
sufficient proof before the jury that the ac-
cused did it. '" ....# '..'.-@ ...-t5'
Second That even if he was the author of
the act, every Obligation of honor as the son
of his father, rs the SON of his mother, and,
above all, the brother of his sister, could be
urged in his defence +; and that in view of these
facts any jury of Virginia gentlemen, taken
from the Potomac to the ocean, would justify
him. e.sa.ssn. -...s.. ga...,. sv-s.s-r.y
In discussing the first proposition, the
learned. counsel quoted Starkie on Evidence
a.: 5-73) to prove that no degree Of probability
would warrant the conviction of the accnsed,
but that the circums tances must be Of the
most conclusive nature and tendency. The
Jury must be satisfied Of his guilt beyond all
II H.
proof that the accused committed the murder,
but there not a shadow Of proof in
evidence that James Grant ever saw Henry
Rives Pollard. Nor was there any legal or
logical proof that anybody killed Pollard
none whatever. In his professional expert
ence he had never known n case where the
evidence was so entirely bare and insufficient
Is the Commonwealth SO lean and lank and
thirsty for blood? The very witnesses whose
names were on the foot of the indictment
have not been brought before them because
the Commonwealth feared they would cut
their own throats.
Mr.. Gilmer asked if this was in evidence,
and Mr.. Bundy read their names, and said no
one knew why they didn't introduce them.
Mr.. Johnson said Knox was before the in
quest, Mayor, and grand jury. These facts
are in evidence. Why was ne not brought?
Because they dared not, and knew he would
Mr. Bundy said nisstatements could be
made MS well inferentially as by facts Mr..
johnson, in stating his motives in keeping
back Knox, was drawing on his imagination.
He said this boldly. r#
The Court: We think counsel are enti-
tied to make their own deductions without
in ntcrruption.
Mr. Johnson The gentleman does not look
scared. ! like Interruptions. They are apt in
the concussion of minds to flash forth the
truth. Is there no reason why the Common
wealth did not examine the most experienced
detective in Richmond when he had been on
the scene so shortly after the occurrence ? He
then dwelt upon tho variance between the
evidence of Craddoclt before the coroner and
this court. He had been examined for the
fourth time before he thought OF the express
sion 81 surrender" Mr.. Handy, another
witness who was by the side of Craddock,
denies most positively that any such express
sion was used. If il was, why wasn't Knox
brought forward 10 prove whether this was or
was not said ? Because he would have denied
it, that is why. What other evidence is there
in this case? The going 10 the room was fl
teen minutes after the event. Where WAS the
prisoner? In his friends room, where he WAS
intimate. There were at least dozen men in
the habit of going there. Who was i'll the room
when the shot was fired Who can say Grant
was? We're there no other windows? What
of the other avenues of escape? Who escaped
we do not know. Is it likely that with this
time and these opportunities the guilty party
would have remaiucd? If he did have Il pistol
in his hund, does that show that he ever III
his life had that gun in his hand
These circumstances were fully detailed and
dTeIt upon, and he asked If there was not
ground for reasonable doubt upon the law
! he had read He didn't speak of impressions,
or ideas or public convictions but where is
the legal evidence? "Where two are con-
cerned, one known to be guilty, but which it
is, unknown, both must be acquitted" Better
ninety nine million should go unWhipped of
Justice than that one innocent man should be
punished. He had looked at the mark on the
window, and, as Il gunner, knew 1t was not
made by powder. If it was, the line which 1t
marked struck eighteen feet from the spot
where the shot struck. He (Mr. Ould) had
asked General Wise, who had genius for
lines and measurements, 10 examine it, and he
| had done so. From the line Of mark, il q gun
| had been fired in that way, 1t was rs absurd TO
| say that il would have struck the letter " ) j"
| AS that il struck the moon. But the CLD.n.oa-
oenlh proves on its examination in CHIEF that
Grant said on his way TO the station house
| that he did not do it and didn't know who did.
They must admit this evidence. They can't
deny iC if they would.
Then, whoever killed Mr.. Pollard whatever
| YOU may believe, whatever moral suspicious,
| con lectures, surmises, you may have there is
no legal, logical proof of who did kill Mr..
Pollard. Whoever had The gun in his hand
we have not yet been shown.
Now, rs to provocati tion. II is painful to ap-
proach. We tried to avoid this discussion.
We conferred upon resting this case on The
question of proof. We were embarrassed as
clined 10 rest it the proof, and said that this
was purely unselfish on his part, rs it robbed
our defence of all its ornament. We were in
doubt and great perplexity.
The speaker said that the jury demanded,
the people wanted, and the case called for, L
full investigation Of all its facts, to do justice
| 10 4 virtuous, injured girl. We agreed. We
do not wish to dispose of this case with L
| technical verdict of not guilty. We want nc
one 10 say that there was one fact connected
with the case which we did not wish jnry OF
his country to hear. 1t is said the introduc-
ton of this article is the admission OF the act.
| But il is perfectly legitimate, submit to say,
| first it is not proved and second, If any juror
| on that jury thinks it is proven, then We in
| sist that James Grant was right TO have done
it.
The general principles on the subject Of no.
mcde have been read from law books. Inc
law of nature underlies all human law, and
has been asserted in Virginia from time ipme-
mortal. We brought from England the COM
| mon law, which still exists. BY 1t man
could, by inst tant death, punish the seducer OF
| his wife or daughter. But what has been the
practice? There is not 4 man on the jury VINO
| has not seen this law ignored, and the man
who Stayed another for such an offence has
| been acquitted. He never knew the record OF
q verdict of guilty in case where the provo
cation even approached that in this case. Inc
| law OF nature and the human heart underlie
8 case like this, and all the legislation on
Gods earth cannot alter them. DID You ever
| hear OF man being hung for killing the sedu.
| Ger of Ills wife. That isn't one millionth part
| as strong a case as this. While, in the other
case, the woman is guilty, 1t is'necessary 10
kill her seducer TO protect society. Here there
is nothing but an insult OF the deepest, oarResl
character, offered in the most imposing, i'm
pressive form, to lovely girl just blushin
| in the bud Of womanhood. He was too old
| for "curls,'' and didn't indulge in one when
| he said that the groundwork on which the
perpetuation of society depends is the protec-
| tion of woman's virtue. You can have no re-
spectability OF society, no respectable inter
| course between man and woman, no recogni-
| ton Of Jesus Christ as our Saviour, unless the