The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-05-03

REVIEWS THE LAW POINTS AND DECIDE
wHEaf ALlsaAG1INsT THE PRfsoNER-gx
PREssIoSS aog3 SYMPATHY II r ON THE
BENCu FoR THE YOUNG MAN-THE PR1s.
oNER NOT SURPRISED AT THE JUDGES
coNCLUsIoNs-THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS
| pRErAREc-sENTESC -,
Judge George L. Christian, OF the Hus.
tings Court, yesterday morning refused to
set aside the verdict Of the Jury finding
! John Z. PoindeXter guilty Of voluntary
manslaugbter in killing Charles c.. Curtis,
and fixing his term OF Imprisonment attwe
years in the penitentiary. The prisoner
heard the announcement with composure.
He was evidently prepared for the worst.
The Judge said that he had had but briel
time to write out his views, and had hastily
sketcbed them of in pencil, as follows:
Commonwealth Us. Poindexter. On mo
ton for a ,,eto fsi1f. - @ = - 49, :. Z. ::
The first ground assigned for this motion
is,t" Because the Court enormously admit.
ted aserfdence to the jury. the testimony OF
VS. Carlton and other. witnesses concern
ing an assault made upon the deceased by
the prisoner between 8 and 10 O'Clock on
the morning of the day on'Which the homi-
eide was committed; the prisoner alleging
that said proof failed to show such a. legal
connection between the said assault and The
subsequent killing as would Justify admit
ting as evidence, without limitation. the said
assault ofsbc morning and the particular
circumstances attending it; and because the
admission OF said evidence operated to
greatly prejudice the prisoners case before
the jury" -
/. The EEorxewh1pping. Affair.
Our first inquiry then Is, Was it error to
have admitted this testimony OF the assault
made upon the deceased between and 10
O'Clock in the morning by the prisoner? 1t
will be remembered that the killing took
place between IL and 12 O'Clock on the same
morning, and that prior to the coming OF
the deceased to the place where the killing
occurred. the prisoner had stated to the
witness (Lyon) that he had made the prior
assault on the deceased that morning, the
place at which it was made, and the crcum-
stances which led him to do so. 1t is true
that when Lyon warned him that the de-
ceased would shoot him for it II he didn't
mind, the prisoner replied, ~ reckon not;
THINK THAT IS ALL OVER"
and that there was other evidence before
the jury tending TO show that when the
prisoner and the deceased parted, after the
first assault, reconciliation had been effect
ed. MIR. Carlton says he thinks they shook
hands; Mr.. Gordon and Mr.. Thomas Poin-
dexter swears that they did shake hands,
and that it appeared to them that recon-
cliation between them had been effected.
But does not the subsequent acts OF the
parties tend to show that there was no such
reconciliation, and that the alleged band
shaking was merely mechanicalf II The
of inp
did the deceased, two houIs later, procure
FRIEND AND STICK, r..
seek the accused, demand an apology for
his previous conduct, and upon failure, to.
obtain one, assault him at the point OF his
pistol and pay his life as the price for the
redress be had sought for in the apology?
Why, when the apology was demanded
by the deceased Of the accused, did the ac.
cused say, :. You can't get one from me ?"
II the reconciliation had been real, would
not he most naturally have replied then that
there was no controversy or difference ex-
isting between them, that all had been set
tied. or words to this effect? Certainly it
must be admitted that this conduct OF the
| parties, the fact OF the excitement OF the
| deceased after the prisoner and he parted
at iWingo. Elicit & Crump's, and the fact
that when the prisoner Was attacked by the
deceased he had .ss...,y. ..,.,...
A DEADLY WEAPON. READY, 80
with which the homicide was committed,
are facts strongly tending to show that the
reconciliation was not complete, and that
the two transactions were SO connected rs
to form really but one whole. But whether
the reconciliation wasreal;or pretended was
n question entirely for the. Jury. Estate Us.
Rash, % Iredel, 1922 think this evil
dence was clearly admissible as q part OF the
res gestde. In Haynes's case (2Sth Grattan,
942) Judge Christian, in defining this what
some writer's term r." legal obscurity,o
saws: LAS definition of what in lazy is
res qestae the following may lie adopted as
accurately defining its limit and meaning i:
Facts which constitute the res geStde must
be such as are so connected; with the very
transaction or fact under Investigation as to
constitute a part OF it." think the eyi-
| dence OF :.:.3': ':'r
| THIS PREVIOUS ASSAULT .4a:s
comes clearly within this definition. Take
laway that evidence from the killing, and
There Is no explanation whatever OF the con.
! duct of The deceased in seeking and making
the attack ON the accused. The evidence
shows that they had nexer,nIet before tbat
morning when the previous assault was
ibeingt inflicted. 40 show the extent to
which the courts have gone in admitting
evidence as constituting parts OF the res
| deStae: In Heath's case, l RohiDson's Re
ports, 796, on trial for murder, evidence
Lthat the prisoner on the same day that the
luccused was killed, and shortly before the
killing, shota third'person, was held ad-
| missibIe as a part Of the res geSiae, under
\ the circumstances OF that case, notwith-
.standing such evidence tended to prove q
distinct felony committed blythe Prisoner.
lin Docks case, 21st Grattan, 300, the de-
carationS OF the deceased when 49,, ..,..,,,
He GOT UP FROM BREAKFAsT ~. a,
that morning that lie was going to the house
l'oi one Mrs. Reed to see il he. couldn't en-
ploy her son or husband to work in case the
prisoner wouldn't work, was held clearly
admissible as part OF the res geStae, when
4 the killing occurred some time thereafter; !;
4 and in People os. S.onecifer, 6th California,
n LAOS, on trial for murder, evidence Of q
difficulty between the prisoner and other
i persons connected with the deceased, on the
I same day, prior to the killing, and at Which
! the deceased was not present, was held ad.
tmissible, for the purpose OF showing aeon.
sniracy upon the part Of the prisoner and
others against the deceased and others, ant
Of connecting the two difficulties together
But not only is this evidence admissible
asspaTt OF there's geStde,' but, In my opin
ion. II is also admissible, under other dls
j'tinct and welI-known rules OF evidence
Mr.. Stephens, in his, excellent little lWorl
called Digest OF
:: -, 10. ,,xs, x..xu oas rI.npNrrtf .IE''..e''