The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-05-07
Crump quoted Bigger as saying 81 can't
say to whom gave it.''


say to whom / gave 1t.
TURNING POINTS.
Judge Crump held that the whole case
turns unon how this paper alleged to be
forged came into Crittenden's possession.
Bigger saws that the certificate was issued
in the hall OF the House. Arthur says 1t
was issued in the clerks Office. Neither OF
these swear that it was given to Crlttendcn.
It was never perhaps in Crittenden's hands
except nominally. No man has testified that
he took the receipt for S1S from Arthur.
ANY one OF several other persons might
have done it.
Among the great number Of points made
and closely and clearly argued by Judge
Crump were that il Crittenden had wanted
to rob he would have robbed Aaron Coma
dorc, who could not read or write, and for
whom accused always signed; that If guilty
he never would have permitted his receipt
| book to become evidence against him; that
there was nothing like Il confession in the
commttee-room, and Colonel Munford heard
but fragment OF the conversation; that the
arrest was not caused by the committee or
any one having knowledge OF the facts; that
| Arthur never knew whether he had received
| SIS or SIS until he opened Crittendcn's book
and examined his account, and that alto
gcthcr Arthur's memory is confused and
faulty.
Next Judge Crump discussed the law in
yolyed, holding that the evidence as to
character must be weighed with other evil
dence; that in many cases character WAS
allowed to outweigh testimony which other
wise seemed conclusive, and that this is one
OF the very instances where the character
proved by accused should exercise influence
upon the minds of the jury in determining
the probability of guilt.
Judge Crump's argument lasted through
two hours, yet was very compact, and was
confined closely to consideration OF the mat
ter in hand. His pcroration was both bril-
! liant and solid.
ARGUMENT FOR PROSECUTION.
The court took a recess from to 7. NJ.
CAPTAIN George D. Wise, in concluding
for the Commonwealth, said that the counsel
for the defence had had the advantage OF
him in a division of labor. He had had all
the work and responsibility Of the prosecu-
ton from the beginning. Actuatcd by no
cnmity towards the accused, and incapable
OF saying to the Jury anything he did not
thoroughly believe, he would close his labors
bv bringing back to the minds OF the jury
some of the points of the evidence so lightly
wcalth's Attorney declared that he was not
fighting for victory; not seeking to rob
Crittendcn of liberty simply that he might
win triumph before the Jury. ''1f he has
done no wrong, if his hand has not forged
that paper. if his pocket has not been
stained with that money, and you say
so in the sight of God and man, it will be
as we'll my triumph as his" said he.
THE INDICTMENT.
The Commonwealth Attorney first pro-
ccctlcd to answer General Field and Mr.. Bar
bour as to the several counts in the indct-
ment, explaining why he had to rely upon
more than one, because it was uncertain
whether the paper given by John Bell Big
ger to Arthur was to be called certificate
| or an account. He admitted that it was his
duty first to prove that forgery had been
committed. The defence had argued be-
cause John Bell Bigger refused to say that
The had not made out that certificate and
SIS there was no forgery; aud yet counsel
throughout the argument had admitted that
it was forgery, notably so in saying that
Crittcnden within forty-cight hours after ac-
quittal would replace the S120.
BAND SIS AND Sl3 AND SIS.
Further, the commemorative Attorney
held that J. b. Bigger's evidence was not
the only evidence as to the character Of the
certificate rs issued from his hand; that
Bigger would not say positively that the
paper was forged, nor that ii was not forged:
that Arthur was standing over Bigger when
the latter wrote the paper, and Arthur says
he is pretty positive Out not absolutely
sure) that it was for three days: that had
this been all the testimony he would have
abandoned the prosecution, but that the
figures "1S' in Crittendcn's receipt
book no matter by whom lnade) were
conclusive proof that the certificate was
issued for three days and SIS; that
on the supposition that there was no
forgery the entry in Criltcnden's book
would have corrcSponded with the figures
on the certificate Q3 and S1S); that the
entry made by J. Bell Bigger in the attend
ancc-book correspondcd with the entry in
Crittenden's book g and S1S)-still further
upholding the theory of forgery that the
larceny was the incentive to forgery, for
without the latter the S120 could not have
been gotten from the Treasury; all OF which
proof, he asserted, is stronger than Bigger's
or hrthllr's memories.
CRITTENDEN's SIGNATURES.
The Commonwealth's Attorney argued
that the appearance OF the signature "Crit-
tenden" on the paper indicating. accord
ing to the rule of the Auditors office, that
a warrant Tor that certificate had been de-
liycred to Crittenden] was proof positive
that he got the warrant from Binford; that
there was no reason to believe that any
body came in between Binford and Critten-
den; that had there been, the name Of that
person, and Crittcnden too, would have
been on the certificate; that certainly no.
body came between Crittenden and the
Treasurer's Office, and If there had it
would have been OF no avail; for
how could that person ever gotten the
signature to SIS in Crittenden's book; that
there is no evidence that any page ever took
a recent in Crlttenden's book; that where
pages went for money they delivered it di-
rectly either to Crittenden or the member; !;
that Mr.. Sullivan and Carter Harrison swear
that the SIS entry in Crittcnden'S book was
not made by them, and that that entry is
indisputably Crittenden's.
THE CoNMITTEE-RooM-HYsTE
The Commonwealth Attorney spoke dep
rccatingly of Mr.. Barbour's ridicule OF that
noble old Virginian Colonel Munford, and
was inclined to give Colonel Munford very
full credit for accurate narration OF what
occurred in the committee.
And as to Crittenden's apparent magma
nimity there it might have been forced by
stress of circumstances. AS to the improb-
ability of Critteuden doing this crime the
Commonwcalth's Attorney said that the
ways OF men are mysterious indeed. Won
ders are constantly occurring. 1t was not
more unlikely that Crittenden should be
guilty than that " minister, clothed in the
robes of Heaven, should with the left hand