Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1886-09-17
The Las! APPEAL !!
THE PETITION OF THOMAS j.
CLUVERIUS FOR A REHEAR-
ING OF HIS APPEAL.

THE PETITIONER DESTROYS THAT THE
JUDGES SHALL REVIEW THE EVIDENCE
OF THE DEFENCE-EsPECIALL THE
CURTIS LETTER NO. "a CHANCE FOR
HIS TEsTIFYING IN HIS OWN BEHALF.
&C, &C., &C.
A little red backed pamphlet containing
sixty-one pages, and having printed on
its cover, s'Thos. j. Cluverius Us. The
Commonwealth-Pet for Rehearing,"
which was presented to the Court of
Appeals here last Friday, by his counsel
Judge W. w. Crump, was the beginning
of the last act in the drama connected
with the tragic death of Fannie Lillian
Madison in Richmond last March a year
ago. Its object is described in the OPEN
ing paragraph, which says to "The Hon
orable Judges of the Supreme Court OF
Appeals of Virginia" that 1.-THE petition
of Thos. J. Cluverius humbly prays that a
rehsaring be granted him of the judgment
of the court upon his writ Of error against
the Commonwealth, which judgment was
announced at the March term of this
Court.''
HOW THE COURT STOOD.
1t will make the petition clearer TO the
readers of the INDICATOR if we state
how the court stood on the opinion, on &C.
count of which rehearing is asked. Judge
Fauntleroy delivered the opinion adverse
to the prisoner; Judge Lewis concurred in
If fI1lIu. in ho
suit but thought the documentary evil
dence of the defense, and such parole
evidence of the defense as was
not contradicted or impeached should
have been considered; Judge Richardson
concurred in the result but has not filed
any opinion, though it is said he does not
concur with all the positions taken in the
opinion, and Judge Hinton dissented from
the conclusions of Judge F's opinion.
THE PETITIoNER's GROUNDS OF
HOPE.
The petition sets forth that 1.-THE
number and Importance of the questions,
both of law and fact, presented by the re-
cord; the unavoidable Interruptions after
the case was submitted for Investigation,
occasioned by the continued session of the
court in the discharge of its arduous,
unremitting, and daily judicial labors;
the division of the court itself
upon vital questions both of law and fact;
and the deep interest your petitioner has
in the most careful and the most correct
decision of the points disclosed by the re-
cordial conspire to create the hope that
q rehearing will be awarded him if it ap-
pears. as it Is humbly but confidently
expected it will be made to appear, that
the questions involved should be further
discussed and considered"
EMBARRASSED BY THE ACTION OF THE
COURT ITSELF.
The petitioner sets forth that he has
been much embarrassed in the exercise of
his right of petition for rehearing, by
the fact that but two of the judges con-
CURED in the reasons of the written opin-
ion Judge Fauntleroy 81 which dismissed
the appeal, and that Judge Lacy's opinion
(agreeing with Fauntleroy conclusions,
but differing on an important principle Of
law, affecting the admissibility of evil
dence), was moi filed until August. The
opinion of the fourth Judge (Richardson)
who did concur in the original opinion
has not yet been filed. 1t is essential to
the prisoner to know the reasons of all
the judges who voted for affirmance; for
each Judge has the power to grant re-
hearing. The petitioner therefore asks
that when their reasons shall have been
given by the Judges. he shall be permitted
to file still another petition upon the
record completed.
ILLEGAL ACTION OF THE sUBORDIN ATE
COURT.
The prisoner then goes on to state his
case. He excerpts to the legality of the
extension, by the Judge of the Hastings
court which tried him, of that term of the
court into another term. Twenty-eight
pages of the petition are used in arguing
this point, the ground being taken that
the law governing the Hastings court terms
required eleven monthly terms. of thirty
days each, a year. and that the Judge
could not legally reduce the terms
by overlapping the May term into the
June term.
THE COURTS LETTER"
Next, the petitioner asks the court to
reconsider its views on the Curtis letter
This is the letter assumed by the
prosecution to have been dictated to
Fannie Lillian Madison by Cluverius:
then copied by her, and signed "Laurs
Curtis;" the copy then sent by mai
to Cluverius and by him mailed back tc
her. She, On its receipt, reading 1t to Mrs
Dickinson in Bath, as if it came from
Miss Curtis of Richmond. This was the
letter Lillian received on March 10th, tell
ing her to come to Richmond and go witt
a sick aunt to Old Point and remain witt
her there two weeks. Judge FauntleroS
assumed in his opinion, that it was "the
question of the defense to the witness
Mrs. Dickinson, that brought out the fac
that 1t was the letter which brought tn
deceased to Richmond, and this, being pu
in evidence by the defence, the prosecution
had the right, &c." to use it. The petit
TONER quotes from the record to show tina
his counsel only asked the witness VIVA
day the letter was received and got the an
swer, "March 10th," Before that question
of the defense. Mrs. Dickinson, witness
for the prosecution, had testified about thu
letter. the Commonwealth had offered tn,
letter and the counsel for the defense hat
objected to its introduction. The petition
or insists that the statement of the cour
that the defense had drought out' tn,
fact that the deceased exhibited the Curti
letter to Mrs. D., was made through in
advertence, and that the record bears hin
out in this. How could the Curtis lette
itself be considered a statement made By