Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1886-09-17

commonwealth unsupported Dy any proof.
That the letter was read to deceive Mrs.
Dickinson does not carry with it any con-
nection of the accused with it. Nor was
there any proof that she wrote the letter,
for her father testified, when The letter
was shown to him, that 81 am not certain
this is my daughters handwriting; I do
not believe this to be my daughter IS hand
writing" No statement made by Lillian
Madison in Bath to the effect that she was
to meet Cluverius and no statement that
she had met him could be admitted. The
case of The People Us. Williams, 8 Parker's
Grim. Rep 81, p. 107, is cited. The de-
ceased left home on Saturday saying she
was going to meet'her husband, who was
Waterman on ship. She returned that
night and died the next Wednesday, un-
der circumstances justifying the suspicion
that he had given her poison. IKE court
(Denio. J.,) held that what she said after
her return about having seen her husband
was inadmisslble as there was no reason to
believe that she then thought she was
dying, and also held that all her declara-
lions that she had been with her husband
that night we're inadmissible. This deci-
sion of the New York Court of Appeals
was given by an unanimous court of eight
Judges.
THE AMERICAN HOTEL NOTE.
The note called 1.-THE American Hotel
note" being the note addressed to T. j.
Cluverius, saying "I'll be there direct
". Do wait for me,'' written by the de-
ceased In reply to one she received on the
morning OF the fatal day, is discussed at
length. The petition urges that the note
is inadmissible under the ruling of the
New York court just above quoted. 1t
stood on the same ground of the woman 3
declaration that she was going to meet her
husband, declaration which the New
York court decided inadmissible because
sit was not offered to qualify an act con-
nected with the issue, but to induce the
jury to infer another act.''
EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT BEFORE THE
CoURT-THE TWO CURTIS LETTERS
NO. l AND NO. 2.
The Petition quotes from Judge Faun-
tleroy's opinion, the sentence that "This
record, voluminous as it is. contains GER
tifcate of the evidence only, and hence,
the facts proved not being certified, the
appellate court can only consider the evil
dence introduced by the Commonwealth,
and will not reverse the judgment, unless
that evidence. admitted to be true is
plainly insufficient to warrant the YER
dict of the jury" And again, "we are
not bound, under the rule. to notice a let
ter of the girl. written in 1888. which was
put in evidence by the defence, to indicate
suicide" The petition says Judge F. in
terprets the rule, excluding the evidence
for the defence, to mean that all evidence
of the defence should be rejected, and the
petition ventures to assert with Difference
for the judgment Of the court, that in no
case ever decided in this State has the
rule applied to the case of this petitioner
been established. In all Virginia cases,
however stringently the evidence of the ex-
ceptant may be rejected. it always re-
stricted the rejection to the parole evil
dence, and the court has laid down the
doctrine that documentary evidence of the
exceptant is to be considered. This is a
matter of great Importance to the accused
seeing that the two Judges (Fauntleroy
and Lewis) who concurred, excluded the
written evidence Of the defence, and
third, (Hinton) was of the opinion that
the guilt of the accused was not establish
ed. 1t is thus of paramount Importance
to the prisoner that these two FIRST men
toned should reconsider their opinion and
allow further weight to the documentary
evidence of the defence. Among the
documentary evidence of the defence
which the petitioner deems especially i'm
portant the court should consider, are the
letters Of Lillian to her aunt, Mrs. Tun-
stall, one in 1883, two in 1884 and one in
1885; the Laura Curtis letter No. 2. and
the record of the coroner's inquest. The
court would thus be in possession of the fact
that Hunt, the colored servant at the
American Hotel, testified that he saw the
watch key, found at the reservoir. On the
tel before her death-and of other impor-
tant testimony. The petitioner lays much
stress on the Curtis letter No. 2. The
plan of deceiving Mrs. Dickerson had been
set forth in the Curtis letter No. 1, and
had completely succeeded. There is not a
line or word in that about an accomplish
no brother" was mentioned, as was said
in the opinion of Judge Fauntleroy. But
in the No. 2 which was found in Lillian 8
trunk after her death, there is a mention
of brother. In this No. 2 the date
| for her coming was fixed on March 18th
| instead of March 18th, as in No. 1. and in
| No. 2 it makes the mistake OF supposing
that West Point was on the way to Old
| Point, a mistake the accused, who is IA
miliar with the country, would never have
made. The writer IN No. says she and
her brother Harry will meet Lillian at the
depot March 14th. In Lillian's trunk was
found in her own handwriting a sketch
of a letter similar to No. 2. Not a scin-
with the No. 2 letter.
| CLUVERIUS, UNDER THE NEW LAW,
COULD NOW TESTIFY IN HIS
| OWN BEHALF.
| The petition says that the opinion of
the court lays much stress on the fact
that so many of the acts of the accused
are unexplained. Since his trial, the leg
isature has unsealed the lips of the pris.
oner which were closed by the common
law. The accused may now be sworn and
testify as any other witness. The petit
tion asks: "But now that he is permitted
to speak, in a conviction founded largely
upon his enforced silence, ought, or can
any human tribunal in these enlightened