The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-05-05

OF no doubts, many errors, and few
facts. John Bell Bigger's dcDeanor upon
the stand, however, was unexceptional. j.
B. Bigger would not say certainly that the
paper had been altered; would not say
to whom he gave it. All he did say was that
according to the attcndancc-book 1t should
have been "3 days" and "S18." General
Field asserted that by viewing the certiti-
cate with magnifying- it would be
found that the was formed on the basis OF
G 6 that the in 13 days was in same ink
rs the 8, and that there was no difference in
shade except what may be attributed to
amount OF ink used, and thatJ. b. Bigger
never said he didn't make that /. He re-
garded it as probable that j. B. Bigger first
wrote that certificate for days pay-S6-
and that Arthur standing over him told him
he wantcd3 3 days; that he put to right OF
the / that he forgot to erase the and re-
wrote Sc, SIS. .s. :... ,..t
General Field admitted that the change
OF one figure was just as criminal as the
change Of two figures, but he held Critten-
den did neither, and hewanted to show
how utterly worthless were the Common
wealth's Attorneys theories and presump-
tions. He wanted not simply to acquit
Crittenden, but to completely him.
OTHER FAILAClES. ~-~.-.
General Field further argued that it was
not proved that Arthur delivered his certifi-
cate to Crittenden; that Crittenden's en-
dorseuIent across the face OF the certificate
was according to the practices prove0 not
unmistakabIe evidence that the warrant
was given to him; that Crittenden was in
no wise responsible for the Poindextcr
forgery; that Crlttenden, fifteen minutes
after the discovery OF the mistake (or
forgery, admitted his legal rcsponsi.
bility; that he intended to repay the
money into the Treasury before he
was charged with forgery, but after
arrest he could not do so without incurrinG
the suspicion OF paving "hush-money"
that within forty-eight hours after acquit-
tai the Sl20 would be placed in the Trea-
sury; that the magnanimity OF Crittenden
in assuming the legal responsibility, and re-
lieving young Cabel|, Poindexter, and
others, and ali his conduct, went to show
his Innocence. @.- - '''.'. -. r..
TIrR EXPLANATION.
The same language that Crittenden used
to the Auditor, to the House committee,
and to others, at the time Of the discovery,
he has used to his counsel since, and now,
General Field said, gives to the jury :
al can't explain it. 1t Is mystery
to me-" But as the disbursing Off
Ger OF the House he holds himself
legally responsible for the lost money. In
this connection the speaker was impelled to
question the accuracy OF Colonel Munfords
memory.
In closing General Field, after eloquently
aluding to the city of Richmond, said !:
=. Gentlemen Of the Jury, if we never meet
again, hope that at least there will be with
you some pleasant recollection OF this in
terview."
He spoke about two hours.
General Field is 4 vigorous and impress
siye speaker and q close commentator upon
evidence. His points were well made, and
his arguments and illustrations enforced in
simple and clear language.
RECESS.
The court took 4 recess from 3:25 to 5:l5
O'Clock.
Among the spectators present were Judge
Joseph Christian. OF the Supreme Court
of Appeals, and Judge Robert W. Hughes,
OF the United States Court. Judge Bell, Of
Culpeper, and Judge Hughes had seats
given them beside Judge Guigon. AS an
other seat could not be made on the bench,
Judge Christian occupied chair among
OF the bar.
HON. JAMES BARBOUR.
Dir. James Barbour, of Culpeper, Of coun-
sci for defence, spoke OF the calm and cour-
teous proceedings that had marked the court
and all its officers, and he was glad to believe
that when verdict OF "not guilty" was
brought in no man would be better pleased
than the Commonwealth's Attorney.
In the course OF his argument he con-
tended that Of all the books introduced in
evidence none except Crittenden's was
found free from error. And for keeping
his accounts correctly the CommonWealth's s
Attorney wanted to send Crittenden to the
penitentiary. The fact having been estab-
lished that q crime has been committed, two
principles were to be observed by toe jury !:
First, that the law presumes every man to
be innocent until proved guilty; second,
that when there is no direct testimony, and
the reliance is simply upon circumstantlal
evidence, every fact in the chain must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt. These
principles are not to be disputed, yet the
Commonwealth Attorney has conScripted
Crittenden for the penitentiary, and re-
ouircd him either to fight or find substi-
tutc-either to stand charged with the crime
bimself or to tell who is the guilty man.
TIE CHAIN OF EVIDENCE.
Mr.. Barbour, discussing the chain OF evil
dence, at the first link John Bell Bigger's
testimony discovered serious flaw for the
prosecution, because Mr.. Bigger said, q
will not swear that this paper raised GER
tiicatel did not come from me in this con-
dtion.'' This Mr.. Bigger Dir. Barbour
warmly praised as an. honest and efficient
ofTicar and fair-mjnded Witness
Mr.. Barbour had no doubt that Mr.. Ar
thur was a gentleman; but it was just as
proper to accuse him OF the offence as Crit
tenden. Arthur's delaying the court one
day by missing q train; his talking to the
Jury in a very subdued tone while giving
in his evidence; his inability 70 say posi-
lively to whom he gave the certificate; his
practice OF drawing his per diem every
three days or week-all were subjected TO
some ridicue. Yet Mr.. Barbour did not
mean to intimate that Mr.. Arthur was
guilty in any respect whatever.
RIDIcULE. ~
Mr.. Barbour asserted that il the man in
the Auditors office had been worth " a
baubee he would have detected the errors !"
in the Poin dexter and Arthur cases "within
three days" The responsibility for over
rests with the Auditor. There
the false or erroneous certificates should at
once have been discovered, it being appa-
rent that these two members had each drawn
for ten days longer than the Legislature
had been in session.
Mr.. Barbour INDUCED his ridicule. too,
at the expense OF Messrs. w. J. Bigger and
Frank Binford as to their errors in book
keeping, and at Colonel Muniord us to his
lapse of memory and mistakes made by him
in compiling the Code.
The remainder OF Mr.. Barbour's argument
was devoted to an analysis OF the evidence;
To IN exnnsllra OF the lltter llnreliahilitN OF