The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-03-25
NO NEW TRIAL.
JUDGE NEWMAN OvERRULEs THE
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
FOR LEE.
The Motion Made Chiefly on the
Ground that The Jurors Had Read
Newspaper Reports of the Trinl.


A large crowd was present ut Henrico
courthouse Yesterday TO hear the argu.
ment on the motion " to set aside the yer-
dict OF guilty" in the case OF Charles
Henry Lee, charged with the murder OF
Daniel Miller on the nth day OF last Feb
ruary. Lee was represented by Major w.
+. &. Gregory, aud the Commonw by
| its attorney, Mr.. G.. W. Thomas. The chief
poInt OF the defence was that newspapers
containing reports OF the trial were read
by jurors.
READING OF TUE PAPERS.
Deputy Gum, who had the jury in
charge, being sworn, testified that the jury
had two copies of the Dispatch containing a
report OF the trial, but he had warned them
not to read them. One Of the iurymen
made the remark that he had heard enough
| In court without reading the papers.
The members OF the jury were sworn
next.
B.J. Kelum: Read two papers; heard
no Juror comment on the article.
II. 5. Crouch 81 did not read the arti-
Gle. nor did I hear it read. The report was
talked about in the iury-rOOm. | had made
up my miad from the evidence heard i'll
court"
Edward Clarke: Il did not see the Dis
patch OF Friday. | may have read the re-
port in the State. but cannot say"
j. NJ. Carter: 81 did not read the arti-
Gle. did not talk with ANYBODY
Joseph C. Redwood: 81 do not remcm-
| Der reading the Dispatch, but think | read
something in the State. Ii | had read
every line in both papers, it would not
have influenced me. Ii heard the article
discussed by the jury, it was very little II
any"
il. d. smith: 81 did not read or hear il
talked about"
Elk. Gum did not read the Dispatch
read n short piece in the state, but no
about the trial. II heard Mr.. Roper reaC
about the trial. Ii had no influence Will
me-
j. F. Childrey did not read it until sun
day after the trial. ! heard Mr.. Ropel
reading the Jurors names, and we teaseC
him about his name, as it was tho first time
that we had ever seen his name in paper
Charles G.. Roper: Il read the article
caroessly. Ny mind, as far as the evidence
which / had heard up to that time. wa
made mp. The evening before | read th'
report in the State. Nothing that | rea(
influenced me-"
George ). Stokes did not read the pape
containe the report. "ltwaS the DiSpdtcI
OF Tuesday that | was reading when Mr.
Gum notified me that the Judge said mus
stop"
HEARING THE ARGUMENT.
Major Gregory argued that the party wa
entitled to neg trial; that the corpu
delici had not been proven, no witneS
having testified to the identity OF the body
aud no witness having testiiiedto the idcn
titv OF any OF the clothing except Barbar
Miller. She did not stand as an acc0mplic
acknowledging her guilt together with tn
prisoner, but denying that she had any
thing 10 do with the crime. Therefore sh
stood rs any other witness, and hay
ing been proven by the Common
wealth unworthy OF credit, being cor
tradicted 10y number Of Common
wealth witnesses as TO many materlf
points, therefore she stood rs any othe
witness unconnected with the transactio
and giving false testimony; that it woul
be monstrous for the Commonwealth I
ask for the execution Of q citizen upon til
testimony OF q witness which she herse
! uau proven UNIV VI IA'NiA'
Secondly. Major Gregory argued tha
articles both IN the State and the Richmon
DiSpqtch. calculated to influence the jury
} had been read by some of them while i
charge OF the sheriff, when he had swOr
not to talk 10 them himself or permit any
one else TO talk to them about th
case; that an article prepared, after du
, consideration Of the testimony, by II
i porter, would have more force with lur
than the mere talking to them would, an
to prove this he read numerous authorize
i'm point, and also cited many cases show
ing that where the circumstancial eyidenc
was much stronger than in this ease tn
= courts had granted new trials, claimln
: that the testimony OF Barbara hlllerShoul
: not weigh with the Judge III this case, bl
that the ease should be heard and decide
solely upon circumstanciaI evidence, whic
would undoubtedly entitle the prisoner
a new trial.
Maior Gregory was followed By Con
m0nwealth's Attorney &. ". Thomas. ii
spoke at length in IN able and forceiI
manner, and cited many cases in suppol
, Of the position he took against re0penin
the case.
At this point recess OF one hour W:
taken.
MOTION ovERRULED.
judge Newman ovelTuled the motion 10
a new trial.
After complimcnting Major Gregory upo
his able defence OF the prisoner, and Speah
ing OF the newspaper report in the Dtspdtc'
the Judge stated that il was full and yer
fair. lacking nothing except that ey
; dcnce which was OF Il character unit 10
: publication. and that he Nas much suuc
with the accuracy OF the report. lie the
read the following
OPINION:
The ease of ChQrIeS n. Lee.
By reference to Atwood's cases--i'
Leach. page 3Gj--it will be seen that il wa
, there unanimously laid down by the twely
indges that the evidence OF an accOmpiic
J should 20 to the jury; and that the lur
were the Judges OF what weight should b
given such evidence, or what parts shouI
be credited. as well as what parts should b
dScredited: and without going into n cita
ton of the rulings OF our own Court G
Appeals i'm numerous cases, | think III
: learned attorney for the prisoner viii cor
cede that the test-case decided by IN
twelve English judges has uniformly bee
the prevailing rule Of practice both in Eng
land and in'Nirginia ever since.
The next question there is, Was the eyi
dence Of Barbara Miller given voluntarily
and not suggested by threats OF punish
ment, or in hopes OF reward or mitigation
Of her own punishmcntl
All the officers connected with the cas-
in any way have sworn that they were care
ful to avoid all threats, promises OF reward