Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-12-02
tary individual waripe.s. seeking to n'anh'
fGcsurs evidence for itself.

deceased shat she was going 10 the place
where she was subsequently found muir
dered 10 take "quick medicine" to De
given her by the accused, in order to pro.
cure an abortion, made while in the act OF
going, are competent 70 characterize her aet
Of going. and the declaration and the act
thus united becomes fact 10 the cise. IN
tbis case the deceased when found In the
woods bad ninety grains 81 oxide OF arsenic
In her stomach and her throat cut. The
jury. therefore, very properly concluded
thai the party, - the Judge IN bis charge
said, who administered Il to her must have
met her by appointment, for he must not
only have bad the arsenic, but a CeSSe' OF
some kind in which 1t was prepared 70 De
administered. This case Is cited by Whar-
ton In bis book on criminal evidence IN
support Of the doctrine that evidence
Of the statements OF the deceased, al
the time Of the attack or so soon dfter-
,rords as 10 preclude the hypoheSis
OF concoctIoR or premedifdtion, charging
the defendant with the act. NAV he received.
In Hadley vs.. Carter. y. H.. 40, when
was q suit brought against person Tor en-
ticipg away fhe servant OF another, Inc
court held that the declarations OF the ser
want made at the time OF leaving, aud show
Missile as evidence. In the course OF the
opinion Upbam, j.. said: "In this IN
stance the servant at the time Of prepara-
tion for leaving disclosed causes for such
design OF a character strongly duplicating
himself. and tending TO mega d qe entirei v any
suspicion Of Intentional m'srepresentoflon
OF his true motive. lie communicated this
design in connection with the fact OF asking
advice what course 10 pursue, and accom-
panied his declarations OF the motive as
slpned with the act of leaving. The decla-
ration then il so connected with the fact as
10 give character 10 IL, and the fact carries
with il at the same time in the declaration
evidence Of the motive"
In Hunter W.. state, Vroom. 49j, the
man afterwards murdered made statements
10 his son and wrote a note TO his vile
few hours before leaving home on the night
Of the murder TO the effect that he was go.
ing 10 the city OF Camden on business, ana
Hut the prisoner lcuS gong trlfa nm. In
This case the court held that such state
mtnts. both oral and written, were admissi-
BILE as explanations and preparations OF the
act OF going from home. In the course of
his opinion Bersey, &. j., after saying that
il was the usual information that man
about leaving home wonld communicate for
the convenience OF bis family, the in
formation OF his friends, or the regula'
ton Of his business, makes use OF this Ian
guape, which seems 10 have been omitted
i'm the brief Of the counsel for the Com
monweallh: AT the time it was given
such declarations could, in the nature OF
things, mean harm TO no one; he who Ut
tered them was bent on no expedition OF
mischief or wrong. and the attitude OF al
fairs at the time entirely eIplodes The ideu
fh0t such afier0BCss icers intended 10 serle
anu purpose bm Mut for trki'h they ,ccre
ObyiC UslY designed" After quoting, with
approval, the Wharton's definition OF res
qesf1 be proceeds: This definition OBJ
yiously embraces the declarations now
CHALLENGED, for they were immediate pre-
parations for the act in question, and
lrere certainly not produced 6y the "a 'ca'
iotcd poFCyOf the uctor rho gave WtTuaCe
10 MCm. Again, at page 40, he says: 'lt
IS principally from the foregoing considera-
lion thai | find myself constrained 10 think
ihatihe declarations under discussion, even
IL they stood in the ease unsupported or M
affected by other circumstances, were ad-
missable, on general principles, on the sin-
yle ground that they were the nntuTul and
innrtifci1i concomitants OF probable act,
which Itself was part Of the res gestG. In
such a status OF the evidence should think
that the exception to the princinle that
rules out hoar,ay hdd been carried 10 It's
ryfrtD0 mt. but without transcending
such limit.
In this connection II must je stated That
both counsel and Judge Faunileroy have
entirely misapprebended the meaning OF
the word preparation - as used in their
uuotafion from section 753 OF Wharf. Cr.
Nv. The word is there with reference to
preparation on the part OF an accused Tor
an attack, for example, as providing him
self with pistol, &c.. as the cIse' cited In
support OF that statement in the note TO the
text will show.
Now these are the authorities relied on
10 sustain the admission OF this letter, and
vet il must be apparent TO every di,pa->ion-
Ate mind that ttey not only fail 10 justify it,
admission, but by necessary implication
forbid il. Running through all OF them
nav be seen the same general idea-tht Is,
that such declarations constitute part OF
the res ge>td onlB when they are the
natural and undersigned incidents or
concomtants of particular act. the
nature Of which It j. necessary 10
inquire into. TINS Idea that the decllra-
ton must be iI7HhfW and not fGbTicdted
| Is illustrated with great force and clearne>S
bv several cases in tins state. In llill's case,
Grstt.. 57l, the court. IN discussing The
admissi Utility Of the declarations OF thr de-
ceased. after citing the ease 0f Reg -. Eos
ter. and one from SkluueT, said: /" All
that is necessary, according 10 these eases,
TO make the declaration par; OF Tie rcS
| gcsfP. l. that Il should he made recently
after receiving tie injury and before he
| had lime 10 make up story or devise any,
thing for his own advantages. Tested 10y
this rule, the statement referred To i clearly
admissible
In Eirhy as. Conn.,. 80 Va, $50, Lewis. L. 4,
speaking for the court. SAID Here tue de-
clarations in question were not only made
recently, but probably within two minutes
after The shot was fired. Aud this, taken
in connection with dcclarants condition,
| mental and physical, produced by the un-
expected, unprovOked. and. a. he sup
posed, fatal shot through the head, repelN
ibe idea that bis declarations were fabri.
Gated. Indeed. under The circumstances
disclosed by the record, II j. hardly re1-
sonable that they could have been iabri-
Gated. as both the time and capacity for re-
Election were wanting.
Whar. Cr. Evid., 263. the author says:
selves. through the instructive words and
act, OF participants. not the words and ac''
of participants when narIating the events.
What j. done or laid by participants under
immediate spur OF transaction becomes
thus part Of the transaction. because It /,
tEcn the transaction that thus speaks. In
Starkie or Evid.. SS7. that author, speaking
Of declarations accompanying an act, says
har Ia. a
ac. are in question. are either 20 be regarded
as part OF the act itself. or as the best ana
most proXimate evidence OF the nature
and quality OF the act; their con-
neciion with the act either sine
tions them as direct evidence. or
constitutes them in direct evidence, from
which the real motive OF the actor may he
duly estimated. Hence il is that decl1rl'
iions made by a trader at the time OF hi
departure from his residence or place oil
business are evidence OF the intention with
which he went. His real intention, In such
a case, cannot be inferred otherwise than
from external appearances. from his acts,
and his declarations are collateral indici
tions Of the nature OF bis acts aud MS ln-
teniion in doing them. Without further
citation al authority. II seems 10 me
10 be beyond question that neither the
statements Of the deceased nor the 30
called Curtis letter were admissible in
evidence. especially against the prisoner.
whose lips were sealed. They do not fur
nish tie real motive Of her leaving Mr..
Diclelson's, aud cannot in any proper
sense be said to characterize the act OF going.
This is not case where the fact that the
declaration was made. and not is truth or