Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-04-23

Weptln, renamed, ne htmsclt says, ns'
an hour, maybe more. lie discussed
with her. he himself says, the physica
injuries incident to the life she wa
leading, and be set up the beer
The woman says DR.. Armstrong
took . glass Of beer, too, ant
put II to his lips, but if he drank an,
it was only q swallow or two. On hi
cross-examipation DIR. Armstrong wa
asked In relation TO this matter
Question: ibid you take glass Of thu
beer?" Answer ~ took It; | die
not drink it," Question 4" Did yot
touch the glass to your lips?" Answer
~ will not say that did not" Ii
none Of these houses visited by DR.
Armstrong did he inquire for his rela
tive. He was hunting for persons, be
saws, and not names, and after he left
Lille Shaw he gave up the search, al
least in Cincinnati, for persons also.
II turned out, however, that the rela.
tive referred to was married woman
some forty years of age, and is and
hitherto has been living quietly with
her husband. 1t will be borne in mind
no clue whatever has been given to the
identity Of this hayward relative. Her
name, her residence have been stu
diously withheld, and properly so, /
think; for if the evidence is to
be believed she has been griey-
ously sinned against by her kins-
folk, by one Of them at least, for, in
stead OF taking the very ordinary pre-
caution Of inquiring at her own house
for a veriication of the rumor, he
rushes off to Longworts street and be.
gins vigorous search for "person "
among the hayward girls there.
There was other evidence in the case,
some for and some against DR.. Arm
strong; but what sane person would
say that the evidence referred to does
not authorize the verdict Of the court ?
But there are other circumstances
connected with the case which could
have been used with terrific effect
against DR.. Armstrong. For instance,
Mr.. Rainey Armstrong, who resides in
Canada, and who is said by DR.. Arm
strong to have given him the informa-
ton about the hayward relative, re-
fused to testify in DR.. Armstrong;
behalf. DR.. Armstrong caused in
teIrogatories to be sent to him to
take his evidence. He burnt them
up and refused point blank to give any
testimony. Said he knew nothing about
the matter except DR.: Armstrong was
there, does not know when he came nor
when he left. lie suppOses the gentle
man was his nephew, but he has not
seen him for many years. He after
ward wrote letter to one Of DR.. Arm
strOng's attorneys, in which he corro-
borates substantially DR.. Armstrong;
statement, but he has never testified in
the case.
Afterward one Of DR.. Armstrong;
widest friends visited Canada, went to
see the old gentleman with a view OF
getting an affidavit from him upon the
subject. lie prepared a written state
ment covering the points already Coz
cred by the letter above referred to, and
got the old gentleman to sign it, but the
weather was bad, the snow was deep,
and it was announcement to have
the statement sworn to, and the
Doctors enterprising friend came
all the way back to Atlanta
and made an affidavit Of what
the old gentleman said to him. DR..
Armstrong himself declined to swear
to the truth Of the statement he made
to the court, for the reason, he said,
when he was acquitted be did not want
it said he was acquitted on his own evil
dence. If he had made no statement at
all could appreciate the reason he as
signed for not wishing to be sworn in
the case but what high moral distinc-
tion there is in being acquitted on a
most deliberately prepared statement not
sworn to and being acquitted on same
statementswornt to is notapparent to me.
The court having confidence in his honor
might give the same effect to his state
ment as if under oath, and thus COM
pliment his honor, but for the Doctor
himself to assume that the court would
give more weight to his oath than to
his statement is reflection upon his
own honor, and if he himself intimates
that his statement is not to have full
credence | very much fear that the
court would be at a loss to know just
what effect to give it.
1t would have been legitimate for the
court and the Bishop to have concluded
from these circumstances that the al
legged information about the hayward
relative and the hayward relative her
self were all a myth, mere after
thought to explain conduct that was
likely to give the Doctor great deal of
concern, and if this conclusion were
reached it would 90 very far to dis
credit the good faith Of the Doc
tors entire defence. As said, |
am at a loss to know what object
is to be accomplished by DR.. Arm
strong's friends in the constant parade
Of DR.. Armstrong and his troubles be-
fore the public. They say he has the
unbounded sympathy of all right
thinking people, and if that is true
ought not it to be satisfactory on that
point? The Doctor says he does not
want to injure St. Philips. 1t took
him a long time to say even this much,
and if he really means it, the most po-
tent service he can render the church is
to control his over-zealous friends. At
the beginning the plan seemed to be to
bear DR.. Armstrong preach outside
Of and disconnected with the
church, but complete revolu-
ton has taken place, and he and
his friends have returned to the church
to renew and continue the fight in the
church. Now, what object do the Doc
tor and his friends wish to accomplish? |
In the interview published by the Con-
stitutioa this morning on the subject of
the Church law in relation to appeals |
the law is correctly stated, for ] have
recently given the subject some investi-
gation On that hy the law IL will ha |