The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-04-13
THE CONSPIRACY CHARGE.
R. B. luNFORD And DEPUTIES ON TRIAL.
Donhurrcr and Motion TO Quash the
Neniro FacIas OycrruIcd and the
Examination Of witnesses
Commenced.

In the United States Circuit Court yes
terday Judge Bond delivered the opinion
OF Judge Hughes and himself oyerruling
all the points OF demurrer made by coun-
sci for Commissioner-of-thc-R Revenue X. B.
Muniord, but permitting the District At
torney TO amend the information so ~ To
show that the voters alleged TO have been
obStructcd were citizens OF Richmond in
1881. Judge Hughes followed the opinion
OF thc1cOurt in fuller review Of the law OF
Congress and explanation OF the decisions
OF the United States Supreme Court bear
ing upon this particular statute.
INFORMATION AMENDED.
District-Attorney Waddill and his assist
ant in this case, John :. Wise, Esq, re-
tired and amended the information so as to
set forth that the obStructed voters were
citizens OF Richmond in 1881 instead Of
1882, for which former year the poil-taX
had 10 be paid to enable them to vote in
November, 1882.
THE NENIRE-FACIAS.
Mr.. Hill Carter, OF defence, said that he
would ike TO question MIR. PleaSants rs to
how this jury was drawn.
Mr. PleasantS came forward, aud an-
swered that under order OF the Court
Judge IlugheS) he drew twelve names
from the Alexandria box, twelve from the
Norfolk box. and six from the Richmond
box. There were three hundred names in
each box.
Colonel Cabcll, the jury commissioner,
was present.
1t appeared that some Of the Jurors drawn
were verbally reported blythe marshal dead
on removed, and that such vacancies were
flied by the marshal, and without another
drawing.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE RICHMOND
JURORS.
Judge Crump. upon this statement,
moved to quash the renire tdciQs, hold
ing that the names should have been drawn
out Of the Richmond box, not out OF the
three boxes. Instead Of that a direct dis
elimination was made against the citizens
OF Richmond; that is OF citizens Of the
Richmond district. Judge Crump held
that the drawing OF the jury was solely
with the clerk, and that no order should
have been given by the Judge. "Wlth the
reason for this order | have no concern"
said Judge Crump.
BYsTANDERS.
Judge Bond called attention to section
S04, which provides that in case Of a de-
fective panel the marshal shall summon a
jury from the byStanders.
Judge Crump said they had not reached
that point vet; that il there was any law
authorizing any discrimination 10 he made
against Richmond jurors he would take his
scat and never open his mouth in court
again.
A MATTER POSSIBLY OF LOCAL PREJUDICE.
Mr.. Pleasants made q personal cXplana-
ton. and read the order OF Judge Hughes
10 draw thirty Jurors "frOm the body OF
the district" He didn't know exactly
how il was TO be done, and he consulted
the Judge. and it was suggested that he
should draw the nameS-tWelye from the
Norfolk, twelve from the Alexandria. and
six from the Richmond box. He was not
sure, but thought these were the numbers.
This was a verbal order from the Judge.
Judge Crump: Why was it done! Mr..
Pleasants said he didn't positively know,
but supposed that they didn't want local
jury, it possibly being a matter that in
yolyed local preiudiceS.
In response TO question from Mr..
Henry, Mr. Pleasants said substantially
that that had not been the practice; but that
he had not before drawn jury " from the
body OF the people" OF the district.
TIE BOXES.
Judge Hughes asked Judge Crump to
point out the law that had been violated.
lie stated that practice similar to that here
complained of prevailed in the Western
district
Judge Crump insisted that the method
4. l.. 4
Of the law. The clerk should have drawn
from the Richmond box.
Judge Bond: There is no Richmond
box. There are three boxes for the dis
trict. You had the chance Of drawing from
900 instead OF 600 names, and il makes it
all the fairer for YOU.
RICHMOND.
Judge Hughes said that Richmond hay-
inc been hurlened with five hundred wit
neSses laS he had UNDERSTOOD summoned
i'm this case. he supposed that that was a
reason for not burdening her with furnish
ing more jurors.
Judge Crump: Do | understand. then,
that il is conceded that only hall the num-
ber were ordered to be drawn from the
Richmond boXy
Judge Hughes said he did not under
stand the clerk to say so positively. II was
conversation which he did not himself al
together remember.
judge Bond oycrruled the motion, but
said that it could be renewed on a motion
for new trial. He thought no injustice
whatever had been done.
Mr.. Henry said the act Of 1879 ordered
that ali Jurors should be drawn in public 4;
that that was not done to fill the vacancies
i'm this ycnire.
EXCEPTIONS,
Judge Crump prepared billO eXcep-
tions. which he handed TO Judge Bond (;
but Judge Bond declined to look at it ut
present, and said he was yet 70 learn that
there was any appeal from this court in
criminal cases. Judge Crump said that he
knew that, but this case might come up in
a different way.
JOEL c. WHITE, NORFOLK.
The jurors were first called fiom the
original list as drawn from the boxes.
Joel G. White, builder, Norfolk, said he
had no prejudice either way.
Judge Crump: How did you vote in the
last election!
Judge Bond: Stop; that won't do. Ruled
out after brief argument.
Mr.. White said he certainly had formed
no decided opinion, and didn't think he
had expressed one. Accepted by the Court.
SAMUEL JOHNSON, NORFOLK.
Occupation, barber; no prejudices. Ac-
cepted by Court.
JAMES PETERSON (COLoIED), NORFOLK.
Occupation, grocer; never converSed
with anybody except the gentleman Fry)
II board with; he said he reckoned that
| was summoned to try the election cases
that is all that was said about it,"
JOHN ROBINSON (coLoREDl, NORFOLK.