The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-07-30

zoe ana MS clcTk, MT. w alldcc w aohtbS
ton, were examined, but knew nothing OF
the impending difficulty except what they
had been told by reliable gentleman OF
this city.
Major Isaac Fl. Carrington, law partner
Of Judge OuId, was next examined. He
knew nothing as to 4 contemplated light,
but was aware that there had been an un-
pleasant correspondence, bat thought it
would terminate amicably. -,
At this point Major Poe deemed it his
duty to give the name OF the gentleman
from whom bis information had been re-
ceived-James c. Southall, Esq.
Mr.. Wise now said that he. thought it
about time to stop this shelling OF the
woods. His client had prepared state
ment, which he proceeded to read as fol-
| lows: -.f~~ e-'
- July 30, 1879.
Having been arrested on a charge of in
tending TO break the peace, desire to deny
any such intention, and make the following
brief statement:-
On the 18th instant I met Mr.. Ould on
the street and demanded an apology for Of
fensiye language used by him in the case Of
Pitcher Us. George. He expressed his will
! iueness to apologize, and requested me to
state in writing the offensive language. l
did so, and delivered the letter now filed:
RICHMOND, 18th July, 1870.
Sir.-Refcrring 10 our interviews OF this
morning, at your request herein repeat in
writing what it was that YOU insnuated and
said in your two speeches OF "Pilchcr Us.
George" that I consider especially libellous
and insulting to me and my family. First,
the insinuations yon made in your speech
on the second trial Of said cause-viZ. That
some one OF my family in interest had de-
s1royed the will and valuable papers OF the
late William 0. George. Secondly, in your
speech on the third trial you said "that il
these defendants put the same construction
as their counsel do" (upon certain letters
that were in cvidence) "that you branded
them as most infamous" These two specl-
tications. insist, shall at least be the basis
OF your written apology to me, and OF what
you say before Judge Fitzhughs court, at
It's next session, in the withdrawal OF the
Objectionable language used by you upon
the occasions alluded to.
Very truly, &C, A. SPEIRS GEORGk'
Mr.. Robert Outd.
This was delivered on first opportunity,
in person, TO Mr.. Ouid. received the fol-
lowing reply:
RICHMOND. VA, July -, 1879.
Il. Speirs George, Esq:
Sir,-Your note Of the 18th instant was
received yesterday. | might perhaps take
Just exception to its tone. but with desire
TO correct any pprehension which may
exist I refrain from doing so. Your first
complaint is that | insinuated ''that some
one OF my family in interest had destroyed
the will and valuable papers OF the late
William o. George" reply that | made
no such charge or inSiDuatl0n. | argued
before the Jury to show that will and other
papers had been destroyed; but, so lar
from stating or insinuating that some one OF
your family had destroyed them, express
~ said that / did not make the charge, ana
that the evidence would not justify me in
making it.
AS to the second matter, there is clearly q
misrepresentation. / suppose you refer to
the erased letter OF William O. George to
Caroline, written in the fall OF 1868, in
which occurred the phrase, " hope there
will lie no more before marriage" [ con.
tended that it could only refer to future
children OF Caroline, and called upon the
opposite counsel to explain its meaning
Mr. Jones contended that it did not refer tc
!; future children Of Caroline, but was {
playful alusion TO Adelaide in conncc
ton with other children in the house
by which, however, William o. George
did not mean to state that Adc
I laidc ever had any children, or Woult
+ have before marriage. | contended tha
: this cynana;ion was neither natural Oh
: proper, and insisted that the phrase referred
r to futurc children of Caroline. though
+ doubtless by way OF banter. In comment
. ing on this matter, / discussed my view
= Mr.. Joncs's view, and third view whicl
{ no one had advanced or suggcstcd-to wit
l that the phrase meant that Adelaide wa'
I impure and a strumpet. l did denounc'
any such conclusion in strong language, II
: the course OF which l think l said that j
S the defendants in the suit had instructed
3, counsel to press any such view tWhlch, II
e fact. had not been done) they would have
! rendered themselves infamous by suct
I course. Everybody will say there was M
I evidence of impurity on the part OF AIDE
laide, and, least Of all, will any one say tina
William o. George thought so, or intended
: to say so. She was my client, and it wa
I my duty to protect her against every
t charge, whether uttered or not. Standing
+ upon the record as she did, had the right
= nav, it was my duty-to say that il any per
sons imputed impurity to her they mad
5 themselves infamous. I did rot brand tn,
5 defendants as infamous, even in the hypo
thetical form stated by you. [ only main
t tanned that ii a serious charge OF impurit,
was made on the facts as they appeared il
| the case, the authors would make them
| selves infamous. Nor do | see how an,
$ one could differ from me Or contest my dut
TO denounce any such charge il it shoult
be made.
That my language in the second speciica
tion is incorrectly given is made still more
manifest by the fact that, if correctly re
4 ported, it would be as offensive to the coun
sci as to the defendants. 1t could hardl.
: have been so understood by counsel. Th
.construction" put upon the phrase b.
counsel was not charge Of impurity, bu
plavfui allusion to the children of other
in connection with Adelaide. 1t could no
; be that I represented that any such con
struction made those infamous who ad
ranced it. If made any such statement
even in the neat OF debate, would deepl
regret it and take pleasure in retracting 1t
It is my earnest desire never to do lnlustlc
to any one, aud wherever it is shown that
have done so, no one will be prom pter L
: redress the wrong than l.
Respectfully, ROBERT OtLD.
He handed it to me in person. To tha
l replied as follows:
RICHMOND, 25th July, 1879.
Robert Outd, Esq: -
Sir.-Your letter OF the 22d instant. in
repIy TO mine OF the 18th, received last
night, containing q Hypothetical apology,
/ consider eyasive and unsatisfactory, and is
not what YOU led me to believe in our in
teryiew of the 10Th instant would be forth.
| coming in your promised written communl-
cation to me. Without desiring to canvass
! the views Of counsel or others as to the mat
| Ter Mt issue between us, and disclalming all