Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-04-02
MADISON MURDER.
THE CASE OF PRISONER CLUvERIus
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT,


Argument Of Mr.. Charles v. Meredith
Yesterday, and Judge W. W. CrumP
10 Speak To-day.
In the Supreme Court of Appeals
yesterday in the Cluverius case Mr..
Charles V. Meredith, Of counsel for the
Commonwealth, proceeded 20 argue in
support OF the judgment Of the lower
court. The first point on which he
touched was the question of jurisdic-
tion-whether Judge Atkins was war
ranted in pushing back the June term
OF his court to extend the May term.
lie insisted that the law was perfectly
plain, and that Judge Atkins properly
exercised the power conferred on him.
lie gave his authorities. But no mat
ter whether this question had been con-
strued or not, he could not believe that
this court would allow the trial to be
set aside on any such question as that.
The object Of the extended time was TO
give the accused fair trial, and there
could be no real basis for complaint on
that score here.
THE TWO JURORS.
The cases Of Larke and Goode, jurors,
excluded from the panel, were next
considered.
Mr.. Meredith confidently relied upon
the record. Neither man was q suita-
bic juror-Mr. Laike because Of his ex-
preston as to hanging a man on circum-
stantial evidence Mr.. Goode because
Of his bet, small though it was, that
prisoner would not be convicted. lie
referred to many authorities, showing
that the court will shrink from setting
aside trial upon any such cause as this,
provided they are satisfied that the ac-
cused has had fair trial. "Td hang
no man upon circumstsntial evidence"
said Larke in that conversation, as was
proved in court. No court could have
had more positive assurance Of the un-
fitness Of a juror. Here was a suni-
cient cause TO set aside this juror, but
this Juror, also, claimed to be over six
ty years Of age, and the Court, in sign
ing the bill OF exceptions, distinctly
avoided stating for what reason it dis
charged LaIke.
Mr.. Meredith contended that Goodies
bet-first Of "ten-cent cigar" next
Of " fifty cigars" that accused would
not be convicted clearly made him
an ineligible juror. lie quoted an al
most identical case.
ARCHER's ANSWERS.
Mr.. Meredith said that in a trial last
ing several weeks, and in the eXamna-
tion Of $50 witnesses, it is remarkable
fact that counsel have only been able to
pick out two questions to call 4" lead
ing" And were those two addressed
TO Mr.. Archer leading? Not at all.
The questions were made as indefinite
as possible. They suggested no answer.
lie was satisfied that the Court would
say that the questions were proper.
CURTIS LETTER.
Mr.. Meredith now passed on to a con-
sideration Of the Curtis letter.
Prisoners counsel urge that the Cur
lis letter was introduced as a genuine
letter.
"No such thing. We deliberately
told the Court that it was forged letter
and that we proposed to connect the
prisoner with the sending Of it, and
Immediately thereafter we did put Mr..
Guthrie on the stand to prove that 2
few days before the date when deceased !
received this letter prisoner mailed her
letter answering to the general descrip-
tion Of this letter."
Judge Hinton: Is it your theory
that the prisoner sent that letter to her
Mr.. Meredith Yes; remsiled it.
Judge Hinton Your idea, then, is
that she wrote the letter and sent it to
him and he mailed il back to her;
Mr.. Meredith Yes, sir.
Mr.. Meredith further contended that |
the letter was a necessary incident of !
the case. 1t was part Of the crime.
1t was the thing that brought deceased |
from home. 1t led 10 the crime. Ii |
was a cause that led TO the crime. So |
if there ever was a piece of evidence
properly introduced this letter was
and here Mr.. Meredith proceeded at
some length to detail to the Court the
evidence against the prisoner pre-
ceding and leading up to the admission
of the letter. But if the Court erred
in admitting the Laura Curtis letter that
error was cured by the defence's intro
duction Of the original draft Of that let
ter. They say that they did it to prove
that deceased herself wrote the Laura
Curtis letter. That was not necessary;
that was a thing easily proved and
could not be denied. But they not only
did that, but defence introduced the let
ter from deceased to Miss Matte Will
liams telling exactly the same story
about the visit TO Old Point"
TORN NOTE.
AS to the Identification of this note
Mr.. Meredith claimed that that was for
the jury to decide. Defence might
have asked the Court 10 instruct the
jury to disregard the note if in their
Judgment it was not fully identified.
This they could have done, but they
did not do. II they wanted instruc-
tions they could have got them.
Is IT THE SAME NOTE:
But is it the same note? Why, is
there one single fact in the record to
throw doubt upon it? | think not.
Mr.. Dodson says: ~ identity the note
and the enrelope." Hunt identified the
note also, 1t is true that Hunt says
Dodson read the address on the en-
yelope 4. J. ClUreriuS.
Judge Lewis T. J. Clemens
Mr.. Meredith No, your Honor.
Mr.. Dodson first read il Clemens, and
they contradict Hunt by saying that Mr..
II a L.