The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-02-23

FEBRUARY %, 1875.
that the man who committed the deed i
one case is guilty of all. The nigh
of the January fire it Is proved il
this court that there were but three person
at the house-tbe mother Of the boy, wh'
was siek; the boys sister, whe was attend
| ing the family at tea when the stable wa
| burned; and Hildrey, Within half an hou
| from the time that the horses we're given Il
Page, who was the third and only othe
person at the house, the roof Of tb,
stable fell in. And we sre, moreover. tolC
that there was kerosene oil on one Of tht
horses, and The witness who was thought tc
be an idiot (the 5oy-Witness5 told us, too, that
Hildrey said be used kerosene oil. Who
else could have burned that horse than Hill
drey Pager Time proves that nobody else
was there. You are bound to believe,it.
There are no means of escape. No stranger
could have approached the house and fred
it in the daytime Gn May), when the hoy 'smo.
theirs house was partly burned. The property
was too well guaraed by dogs !, and Hildrey
Page tells you himselfthat he was the only one
who went to the bouse from the garden to
get drink Of water. Mr. RuffB was in the
field with the other hands. Colonel Ruffin's
dwelling.house interpoSed, and the fire was
even ON the opposite side of the house, and
yet HildreV Page was the first to cry fire
when the garden and two houses in.
tervened. 1t wrs in the broad daytime,
and the fire not six inches square.
Who else than Hildrey Page could have
done this? Take all these facts, and they
draw around this accused line of fire from
which be cannot escape except by death.
In concluding, he begs the jury not to
pause short of The punishment of death.
REMARKS OF Mr.. HAScocE.
- Mr.. Hancock followed Mr.. Wise, and said
that he was almost induced to ask the court
to adjourn the jury after having heard the
filming argument of the eloquent gentleman
who had just concluded his remarks. Its a
solemn time when the life OF human being,
and a citizen, hangs upon your verdict. lie
then alluded TO the high and noble conduct
which Mr. Ruflin had exhibited in this trial
and the wave CT sympathy which Is sweep
ing over this State for him. If you have SYM
patby for Col. RufEn, you are nOta competent
juror. If you have prejudices against that
man, in the name OF God, in the name of
truth, tear them from your breast as you
would viper. What we lack in eloquence
and pathos we make up in the earnestness
which we show in the desire to bring this
evidence correctly before you. Although
there is a grave responsibility resting upon
the prosecution and defence, as we'll as the
honorable judge Of this court, too, upon
whom in a measure hangs the life of this pri-
souer, there is graver responsibility resting
upon The twelve men composing that jury
Of Chesterfield citizens, who shall say
whether he shall die or 60 to the peniten-
tary, whether be shall 20 to the penitentiary
or go free.
Mr.. Hancock then reviewed all the testi-
mony, and from his standpoint reduced the
cyidcrce of each witness to i very small
compass. Most Of the evidence he regarded
rs merely circumstantiaI, and argued that it
would never do to put II mans life in Jrop-
ardy upon circumstaDtial evidence. lie
claimed that Dlan must be much prtjudiced
who could swear that the bundle OF iagotS
already exhibited was made OF one Of TWEEN.
ty.lour hoe-htlveS which Mr.. Frank Rutliu
had cut, and one Of which this prisoner is
represented to have had. He hoped the
jury would tear this evidence from them and
not weigh it in the least. Having dismissed
Mr.. Frank Ruffin, Jr.'S, testimony, Mr. Han
cock turned to what Mr.. Clay had said, and
concluded that he must have been mistaken
about the barn being on fire at . O'Clock, be-
cause when he discovered it it was about 3
O'Clock. and from the headway it had made
be guessed that it had been on fire an hour.
In regard to Wilson Cary's testimony he be-.
licved that he was not a competent witness.
Having argued upon the testimony brought
out before the confession, he said away
to the winds with the circumstantial
evidence; it would be indeed unjuS to con-
Victims boy upon that evidence. Turning
to the confession, he said that it may have
been made by reason OF the natural intrmity
of the mind, and should be received with
great caution. He read from Greeneaf on
Evidence to prove that confessions must be
made deliberately, voluntarily, and that this
confession had not been made voluntarily,
because there was hope in the mind Of the
accused of a collateral reward. As to the
motive, he argued that it was contrary TO
reason to suppose that the boy had Il motive
to burn down his mothers house and Colonel
Ruflin'S barn.
AS TO Wren's testimony he said he didn't
believe the jury would pay any attention TO
it. as il was contradicted both by Dir. Slmp-
son and the boy Norman. He laid partlcu-
lar stress upon the tact that only short
time ago Mr.. Ruftin and all these witnesses
had sworn before the grand jury and the
Justice that they believed Sllas Fowlks
burned the barn now they swear that thcy
believe Hildrey Page did it.
Mr. Hancock concluded by saying that it
was the duty of the jury to disregard all
prrjldiccs, to act independently, and ne felt
sure that as the great question was between
life and death they would do their duty like
good citizens, with the eyes of the Omnipo-
tent resting upon them.
at = O'Clock, Mr.. Hancock having conclu-
ded his remarks, the court took recess for
an hour. ..
Afternoon Session.
The court met again at halt.past O'Clock,
when Mr.. Pulliam resumed the argument
for the defence. He said that the position
which be held in this court was rather sin
gular one. He was not the paid counsel Tor
the prisoner. but had been appointed by the
Judge, and although he bad delayed the case it
had been done only because ofits Importance.
1t is = case Of great Importance not only 10
Mr.. Ruffin and the entire community, but
of paramount importance to the prisoner,
who, if he be found guilty, will forfeit his
life. His (PulIiam'>) personal feelings were
such as almost TO debar him from speaking
in the case. Then, again, his inexperience
made against him, but he bad the conscious
ness of having done his duty, at least, in de-
Tending the accused.
Mr.. Puliam next read the indictment, aud
said it was necessary to prove, 6rst. whether
an offence had been committed; and second.
ly, whether the said Page committed the
offence. He did not propose to question
that Mr.. Rufin's barn was burned, but as TO
its being burned in the nighttime he did
question, He then reviewed NJ. Wise's ar