The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-05-01
.MECKLENBURG COUNTY.
Trial of A. y. Lee for Assaulting the Attor-
ney for the Commonwealth.

ney for the commemorative.
Correspondence of the Richmond DIspaich.I
BOYDTON, VA, April 80, 1884.
At the April term OF our County Court,
lust closed, there was tired case OF such
great interest TO the people Of our county.
owing TO the prominence Of the parties and
the principles involved, that short review
OF the facts may be proper. During the
Harvell trial. at the February term of the
court, difficulty occurred between Mr.. A.
:, Lee, counsel for the prisoner, and Il. i.
Thorp, ESD, attorney for the Common
wealth. Ilarvcll was on trial for burning
an occupied dwelling in the nighttime.
As it was improper for the Common
Wealth's attorney 10 act in the case
of Lee ard ThOrp, the Court appointed
Mr.. G. l.. Finch TO represent the Common
wealth in bringing the whole difficulty to
the attention Of the grand jury. Two in
dictments were prepared 10y the acting
Commonwealth attOrney-one against A..
;. Lee for malicious and unlawful cutting,
with intent to kill; the other against Il. T..
Thorp for assault and battery. The grand
Jury, OF which +. ii. Russell was foreman,
found true bill against a. :. Lee upon said
indictment, and dismissed the one against
X. f. Thorp. The Court (Judge Charles
Alexander. having recognized the proba-
bic improperly Of his sitting in the case,
entered an order inviting Judge Buford, OF
Brunswick to preside. The defendant not
beng ready for trial ut the March term,
the case was set for the April term OF the
court, and jury OF White men-plain,
sensible farmers were empanelled ana
sworn. The trial commenced on NedneS-
q fI.. tVrff Nv
ahmed were the jurors IN The Haryell case,
which, as stated, was being tried at the
time the difficulty occurred. The teSti-
monv closed Thursday evening about D
O'Clock. The rulings and instructions were
favorable to the deiendent throughout, no
cautious objections being raised at any
time by Mr.. Finch, acting Common
wealth's attorney, 10 the course OF the
Count. As soon As the testimony closed
the acting commemorative attorney urged
that the argument commence, as he did not
wish to be forced to make two speeches IN
one day. The defence, however, wished
time to prepare instructions, and time was
given. The instructions were argued
on Friday morning, and about O'Clock T..
VI. Mr.. c. J.. Finch commenced ms open
ing speech, stating that it wonld necessa-
riiv be long as he wished fully and fairly
to review the testimony in the case, anu
10 candidly assign all the reasons in his
onening argument why tie accused
should be convicted, thus giving the
counsel for the accused an oppor-
tunitv TO meet and refute any spe-
cious argument that might be made by
him. He was followed first by Mr.. George
y. Finch, one of the counsel for the de-
fence. in speech Of about an hour ana
quarter. Next by Mr.. W. L. Atkins, an
other one of the counsel for the defence,
in a speech Of about one ana nan hours
the argument for the defence being con-
cIuded by Major }. W. Riley, OF HalifaX'
at half-past II O'Clock at night IN speech
~ one and a half hours. The acting at
tornev for the Commonwealth then
followed Major Riley in speech
OF about one and han hours,
concluding at , O'Clock IN the hlgni;
when the Jury were adjourned over unt'i
morning. Almost immediately upon tne
opening Of court they rendered lneir
verdict, finding the accused guilty. OF mall
cious cutting with iutent TO XIII, ana ascer-
tanning bis term OF Imprisonment III Tue
oenltentiary at one year. The jury Stooa
frat for conviction under hrst count WIN
IMPRISONMENT at from one 10 ten years
They being discharged upon MOTION
OF Sir. A. 5. Lee by his counsel Tue
Court set aside the verdict ana ailo"eu
the accused new trial. The line OF
prosecution, by Mr.. c. l.. Flnch'
NAV be briefly stated as follows: lie said
thai there was a great principle, ihVoN-
ing i"g' home security, raised by this question
before the jury; one Of vastly more i'm,
portance than the amount OF pun Tsa leu,
or the liberty OF the accused. The real
question involved, as he claimed, and
Which should first occupy the attention OF
the jury, being whether the life OF Sworn
officer Of the law, IN the proper dlscnarge
~ his official duty, in the very temple OF
iustice. and in the presence OF the court
while prosecuting a man who had been \, ~,
Sieted for the mt licious burning IN the night
time Of dwelling, in which res.e S Ia ao ,nn
c;sd security helpless women ana young
chill children, should be protected or notf
And II they should answer the question IA
the Affirmative, be said they were tnen 70