The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-02-22
4 TRIAL FOR LIFE.
SECOND DAYS EXAMINATION OF THE
CHESTERFIELD HOUSE-BURNER.
WHAT THE BOY-WITNESS KNEW
ABOUT IT.
EVIDENCE GROWING sTRONGER
TIE CASE TO END TODAY.

| Of Iiildrev Page, the alleged houSe-surner,
was again called. The number OF persons
in attendance, both white and black, was
quite as large as on the first day of the trial,
| and the interest manifested in the proceed
| ings was uuabsfed. There was, perhaps,
greater attention TO the proceedings than Oh
Friday, owing, in measure, no doubt, 10
| the approaching conclusion Of the case.
Judge WeiSiger stated to counsel for dc.
fence that Mr.. Wren had been summoned TO
appear Saturday morning, but that he was
in The custody of the Hastings Court, and
tnat be (Wren) was unable TO give the name
OF the negro man who was in Craddock's
office at the time the alleged confession was
| made.
Al the suggestion of Mr.. Wise an officer
was sent over TO Judge Guigon requesting
| him to send Wrel over TO testify.
AN IMPORTANT WITNESS.
| The Jury having been taken from the
| courtroom, Colonel AmberS, Common.
| weath'S attorney, renewed the application
for the admission of Wilson Cary's testi-
| moDy, the boy who was not allowed to be
examined Yesterday. Colonel Ambers trst
stated that he had examined some of the au-
thoriiic> Oh the subject, and that as to his
| ace he thought the court could not object.
| The Court: will say very frankly, gen.
tl,men, that | had no diff Guilty about the
! quc>tioR of age, but the difficulty with me
| vas that the boy didn't seem to understand
the nature and obligation Of an oath.
Coloucl Ambers, continuing his remarks,
said that the inability of the boy to state the
nature Of an oath ought not to debar him
from testihing. The reason why The jury
| was asked to be taken from the court was
| that this boy was present at the time OF the
lire and slept in the barn that night-that the
boy ard the accused were known to be inti-
! mate friends and-
Mr.. Puiam interrupted the attorney for
the Commonwealth. and claimed that the
matter was being brought before the court
| improperly.
Colonel Ambcrs. changing the statement of
! his proposition, said Suppose this boy
| and the accused were in certain house in
i Manchester on the night Of the alleged burn.
inr. and this fact was proven by witness
| Who was in the house 1T the time. On the
other hand, suppose this accused had told
the boy on the night of the tire not to take
certain garment into that barn, rs il would not
| come out would not the fact in the one
case 90 far to prove the innocence Of the ac.
cu>ed while on the other hand, the evidence
would 20 to prove the guilt Of the accuScd|'
Colonel Ambcrs then argued that il the
boy was again brought forward and ex'
amlned the Court would be satisfied that be
vas u competent witness.
The Court thought that the boy did not
comprehend the extent of the OATH
Mr.. Hancock, for the defence, said that be
thought it would be useless to bring the boy
forward a> a witness aglin, rs it was evident
from bis examination yesterday that he dld
not know the nature Of an oath, for when
asked By the defence what an oath was, said
that it was to tell lie ; while. when the
Court asked him the same question, be said
ii was curSing.
He then cited case from Grceneaf on
Evidence REX Us. Willams) to show that
the witness must believe that he is in The
presence OF Deity, and that he is invoking
the Deity to bring down vengeance upon
him if he does not speak the truth what he
suy> must be binding on the conscience.
/, Mr.. Pullam discarded the age Of tue boy,
and argued that the boy was incompetent be-
cause he did not understand the nature OF
the solemn obligation. He cOnteDdcd that
it WAS not logical for the prosecution TO con.
J.. tend that the boy was sufficiently intelligent
TO testify.
Mr Wise stated that he thought the boy
j WAS competent witness. Under all the
:. authorities, his testimony would he al
loved. He is elevated higher than many
t Older witnesses, who cannot read the first
letter Of the alphabet. All the authorities
. lay down the proposition that il is not ahSo-
lulcly necessary that witness should have a
: | lull know ledge of the nature Of an oath.
Take 4 boy OF young understanding and put
him on the stand, and you will soon tell
} whether he is living. Put ali old and hard
, entd sinner on tie stand, and it will be well
nigh impossible TO say whether he is lying or
telling the truth The boy was asked what
was the nature of God? Who, in this court
room, can answer that question? Even theo
iogians differ on his subject. Who knows
in this courtroom, what will be the nature
!: of the punishment irtiicted upon him il
he lies: Not one! 1t is simply necessary
for the witness to know that there is Di
vine being who will visit punishment upoI
him if he lies. This witness has been taught
as he said yesterday, that he would be pun
ished if he lied. Children have not the mo
tive to deceive.
Mr.. Wise read from Roscoe on Evidence
TO sustain his point, and contended that the
very books which the defence have quoted
show that children even of the tender age OF
five wears have been witnesses, and under
their evidence men have been condemned
WHY, sir, this boy has been under the tutor
ace of the lord lieutenant DIR. Hancock
superintendent of >chooIs) OF the educitlona
| department OF Chesterfield county. For hye
! wears ne has been at school; and has beer
| taught. too. in the county sunday school o.
| Chester tield that God would punish him II
he iicd CoIuncl Rullip, IN educated gentle
man, saws that he Is Il boy OF more lntelii'
+! yrnce than nine out of ten boys OF his age
| ll,. hoped the boy would be recalled and eX'
amiueu again aS TO bis competency, ana II tbe
court is then satisfied that he is Incompetent
his testimony will, Of course, be excluded.
THE BOY TEsTIFIEs.
| The Court recalled the boy.
| The Court DO you know what you are
| brought here Tor!
| The boy /: Yes, sir.
| The Court: Do you know what YOU put
your band on that book tor yesterday
Witness Yes. sir to tell the truth. :,
The Court: What will be done to you II
you lie.
Witness: will be punished, sir.
| The Court: suppose you tell i lie and wc
dou'i know anythin. about ii; do YOU think
| YOU W,il bc punished then!
! Witness Yes, sir.
The Court : When!
Witness: Wien die. God will punish mc.
| The Court: What does the Bible say about
, lying!
Witness: Says I'll be punished for it.
The Court Where did YOU stay last night
Witness At home with my tsther.
The Court: Has any body said anything TO
you about this case:
Witness: No, s:r.
The Court: This boy certainly talks inuci,
better than he did Yesterday. lSenSallon anu