Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-05-07
thus proved had brought her to the scene OF th
her death te

tneorlginal evidence material and proper,
.nsa Whatever error was made In nrss AZ
miuing 10 is removed.-1 Bishops Crimi-
nal Procedure, section e66, b.: Eastman
-. company. AL ". Hamp. 1913; Scott IS
me state, 80 Ala, sos: Dana, page =,
kutker r.. Hamilton: Dana, pages 36-ti:
Ths court has recognized the right to look
10 The whole record 10 determine whether
any reversible error has been commltteu
by htting in improper testimonv.-Oers
~, Jones. 32 Grattan, 5Is-529. Tue
prisoner knew the assumed name IN.
derwhich the deceased girl registered ~
the Exchange Hotel January 8, 1855. anu
81 the American Hotel March Is. lss1s
1hey were toEether a. both times an.
places In Richmond The girl was enabled
toset Mrs. Dcklnsons consent to her com.
Ing 10 Richmond In January by the iirst
conspiracy with the prisoner to deceive MS
Iickinsop.
ON March the 10th she received through
the post ONCE in Bath the Laura Curtis
letter "a forgery written by herself. IL
contained letter and a note. and was IN u
white envelope. IL was proved that lhe
prisoner sent TO her through the post-otice
? thick letter. In a white envelope. from
King and Queen county n few days before
she received the one on March 10Th. The
prisoner came TO Richmond on March 12tn.
the day ON which the Curtis letter told her
10 come. She again registered under the
same assumed name-the very name.
merton, that the prisoner had been
proved 10 have assamed: and the
lrst person with whom she gets into
communication, and that before she had
nrished her brea akfsst. is the person
wlo knew-aBd. so far as the record
shows, the only person who knew-the fase
zane she assumed In chmond-and tnat
rersOn was the prisonerl She was seen with
the prisoner that morning and during the
I4lay, and she WIS seen with no one else tnat
morning. When asking for her at the
American Hotel, on the night OF the l3th
Of March. the prisoner used TO the notel
Office boy an expression born or the curtis
letter. and showing his acquaintance with
the scheme Of the said letter, which was 10
produce the impression that ne was the
brother Of Miss Curtis, the ostensible writer
Of the letter, whom the letter asserted
would call on Miss Madison, the deceased.
The letter was admissible as one OF the acts
and facts OF the dead girl-Just as the fact
Of her satchel. her hat, shawl. gloves. or
her declara ton to the conductor on the
railroad en- route TO Rich mond; even though
.be evidence did not (as II most powerfully
md convlnclpgly does tend To trace III
iome 10 him, and prove that he re-
nailed it back TO her. for the pur'
ker 10 Richmond, and that she came by
leason OF IL. This will more fully appear In
the discussion OF the seventh bill OF excep-
tions. In the record II appears that the
prisoner put in evidence q virtual copy OF
the Curtis letter, and that he also intro.
duced a letter from Miss Madison. the dead
girl. to Miss Williams which contains the
substance OF the Curtis letter: and by 50
dolrg he must be regarded as having waived
or cured all objection TO iis former intro
ductlon, and relieved the Court Of the error
II there was error.
The decision OF the Hastings Court In ad-
mitting the letter TO be read was In accord.
ince with the principle OF res GestR and
vas right: and even though IL we've mad
nissible when admitted, IL was made AL
nissible by the subsequent testimony OF
he Commonwealth and by the testimony
offered by the prisoner wlthal.
The Torn Note.
VI. The sixth bill OF exception presents
he objection made TO the admission OF a
certain note in the handwriting OF the dead
sirl and addressed To the prisoner, spoken
81 In the record as the "torn note.' In dis
outsing the Curtis letter" as questioned
N the ran bill Of exceptions. very
much OF the evidence germain 20 the iden-
uncatiOn and admissibility OF this torn
sOte," and the various and leading authori-
hes bearing upon the doctrine OF res gest1.
laye been cited and elaborately commented
IN: yet. In giving due consideration 10 tue
mb'ect Of this torn note as an essential
ilnf in The chain Of crcumstaDtial evi.
ience upon when the verdict OF guilty and
he judgment of the Court are based, much
iepetitiou Will lie unavoidable.
Gu Msrch IL. 1885, ts1ys Judge FaunileroyJ
tlout O'Clock 4. q small colOrcd boy brought
notc 70 The American Hotel i9r ihe 0ccup!nto
'EOom 4. lEt occupant or - Room II WIS
Fannie ilnan Madison. the deceased, whJ was re-
gistertd hy her own handwriting - Nlss r. J.
Nerton.' Tie said note was banded 10 The elorH
podsoD,. VITO gave II 10 Tho Oficc waiter Hunt.
flnug him 10 take II 10 The lady In Room 2l.n
Hunt took he note UP 70 Room q, gave u 10 Miss
Madison, The occupant Of Room 2l, ana waited
wh.. she read u and wrote a reply, which he re-
c,iyed from ter IN sealed envelope. directed to
l. -. tluverius, nnd carried II down !"
10y who had brought the note To- which
was n reply The boy went out with II. but re-
turned with y ~ about five minutes. saying tlil'
10 could not 6hd the gentleman. and gave IL 90 thc
derk, Mr.. Joseph DOdspn. The sealing Of Tho
Envelope had not been disturbed. Mr.. DOdson pUt
he noe on tie hoie -counter or de,k where u r'-
'gtiBc.. anvil saiurdn' nigiii, wIrh Mr.. - 1dson.
EIding the name On the envelope as"r j. Glenn
mems" and looking in the directory for that nam,.
mi not ind NJ if.and the occupant OF" Room Zl
isvng lett the hotel without paying her bill' tore
DE note up and east the scraps Into The waste
lastei On Monday he spoke about the note, anf
OoLed into the whs'c-basEet for the scraps.
ho roqucst Of neiociiye John Wren. 10 whom b
.avr iL,m as soon q, lie found them. Both ilont
iLd Docson EwOre that tie not which Huat CAV
% The boy was In n crcam-c colOrcd envelope. HdGt
,wnfe hat the envelope offered IN evidence WAS The
same one that hc gave to tie hoy-hoih Dodsoh
and Hunt swole tiai tie envelope offered IN cyl-
Gcrce WIS the 'aiuc one that the hoy brought bscs
in tive or SIX minutes. > he handwriting OF III.
noie aud on the envelope VA, proved TO b. lhat
cf Niss Madison, the occupant Of Room IL" III
words Of lie note were" viii BE- there "a soon
los,ible. 80 wait for me- she left The hotc!
ln few minutes after she sent the note, doing a,
-hc said size would do in the mole directed 20 To.
ClUycrlus, IN response to tie one which had berH
delivero.t 10 her IN Room 2l." In about an hOur
afterwards sO f. seen with the prisoner. Z. j
CiuYerius, iu distant part ofthe city. When sho
returned 10 the hotel she asked for the note. thu
fh0wing that she had learned that II had not beeI
delivered 10 Z. J. L luyerius. 70 whom II was d.
rrclcd, and with whom she had been since sb3
huTricCly lefi the no al soon alter O'Clock ina!
morning." b. BE- there as SOON as possible
From whom could she. by any conceivable
possibility, have learned the fact that the
nole. which she hsd directed to 4. j. Clu
verius. had not been delivered to or received
10y 4. !. Cluverius. except Il. j. Ciuverius
himself? Thus is the torn note fully and
Enthusiastically identified. not only by the
positive, direct testimony OF Hunt. but by
ihe corroborative evidence OF the hand
writing and the significant action OF the
halpiess woman herself so soon to
be the victim OF most foul and
the person whom she was, all un-
consciously, thus connecting with the
"toIn note and branding with this badge
OF his brutal and cowardly crime. Tue
small cOlored boy who received tho note
from Hunt. in the office Of the hotel, and.
after an absence OF a few minutes, brought
1t back to the hotel and gave II TO Dodson,
the clerk, has never been found by the
utmost diligence Of the Common wealth 10
fiud him and To produce him on the tlial; /;
but his evidence Is not indispensable toths
Commonwealth as his testimony would
only he cumulative to the fact fully proved
by the witnesses. Dodson and Hunt. Who so
likely 10 be- able to recognize him or TO know
mis- wherea bouts as the prisoner. who had
selected and made use OF him? ? The facts
ia this case are widely and essentially dif-
ferent from those upon which the opinion
Of the court is based In the case OF Mitchell
rs. State, III Georgia, cited by the counsel
for the prisoner. The "torn note was al.
III issible as part OF the res gestR-as q
silent admissioR-as proof that the prisoner
and the girl. Fannie Lillian Madison. were
sNarf fN..Na h..P faaf
day. and TO identify the occupant OF Room
II - as Fannie Lillian Madison, the dead
girl
rally. The objection to Its admission was
general one. The prisoner did not pray the
Court to instruct the jury Is TO what ques-
tlons in the case twas proper evidence and
As 10 which IL was improper. The rule Is
laid down In Tay Tor on Evidence, Volume
H., Pages 1878, section 1881;
Where evidence is offered Tor par
ticHar purpose. II The judge rrorouncts In fa'or
~ It's gene raj admi.sblty In the cause the court
Will support his decision. provided the evidence
be admissible for any purpose"
In Greenleaf on Evidence. ii Ed, Vol.
l., section los. the author says:
"so, also, where person, &C., leaves his home
&C.. his declarations made NJ the time OF the
transaction, and expressive of It's character, mo
dicsting present purpose and Intention. and are
iheTefofe admitted Ia proof Ike any other mate
rial fsct.~
The "forn note" was written hy re oc o
cupant OF Room 21." when she Wa oout
TO leave most hurriedly the hotel. az, but
few moments before she did leave ths
summons Of the prisoner TO meet NJ a on
the day on which she was found deel. III
maiks the time and manner or nef 'leet-
ing the prisoner-both OF them eir' ngers
here IN Richmond-at the same q .. IL
declares her Intention TO get into ILLS com
pany and to "be there as soon a. possl bic,