Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-03-31
iy Of his Imagination. No wonder the Conrt
doubted on the question OF identity OF the

ty Of his Imagination. No wonder the Court
dcn6fed on the question OF idenuty OF 'h'
note.
The effort OF the Commonwealth to ex.
plain away the force OF tue case OF Mitcnfi'
-. state. III Georgia. I2s, cited In the peu.
tition, is not succerzfui. The bald fact
that Jack Wren carried boy 70
Mr.. Joseph Dodson TO be Identified rs
able 10 do so, does not prove tina. the Com
monweaiih, IL her case was committed 70
him. tried TO produce the boy. Why not
conclude, from the fact stated that she DID
not wish TO produce the boy. inasmucn as
her agent carried boy to Mr.. Dosison 20 be
identified. who could not be. such con-
clusion is Just as logically deduced from tne
facts. Why was not Jack Wren when on
The stand as witness for the Common
wealth ASKED about his efforts In this be
half? Strangely enough, he and the long
line of policemen who manmuvered a.
witnesses say nothing about any effort 10
supply this link now 80 much needed. Tne
Commonwealth, in her extremity 10 meet
tents OF a paper the admissl bility OF which
is still in dispute, to prove dissifnilarity be-
tween this case and the Georgia case.
Though the Court may think the note
identsfed 50 far as TO be satisfied that IL was
written by the deceased and addressed TO
the prisOHer, yet, IL being admitted that "
never reached him, 10 cannot be admitted
In evidence. To hold that communlca-
ton addressed TO an individual and not re-
cetved, consequently beyond the power OF
the individual TO contradict, answer. or ex-
plain, h TO put us all in the power and at
the mercy OF every blackmailer IN
tie land. ANY crazy creature con-
tenplating suicide might place her ruin
and death ~ the door OF the worthiest citi-
zen. These are the considerations that have
actuated the courts In rejecting unreceiyed
letters. No general rule as TO admlssibility.
because part Of the res qes,o', has been al
oH a n of
In the case Of Meek and 7Rornfor's Erecu-
fors-ug. PerfV c-d We 30 Airs. ise, fns
Judge delivering The opinion OF the court.
al page POI, says: These declarations. as q
part OF the res ges'0, are only admissible in
subordination 10 enlargement rules which
govern in the admission Of testimony gen.
pGiaIcs ir case 81 Graf. s5S. and so well
established as the law OF the land-viZ.
that proof OF the contents OF letter or pa
per which party did not receive Is mad
missible against him-must control the
OF the operation OF the effect OF the doc.
trine OF The res gcSf,r. even though IL would
be admissible on that ground.
The cases cited on this point In the peti-
ton are pertinent and need not he again
cited here.
II the deceased had never returned TO the
hotel alive afiershe left. q few minutes after
writing and dispatching the nota the pre-
tension tnat III was n Idfi OF tne res QesfN
woEd be more potent. II every time she
Wss seen after the sending OF the note she
Was pTOVedltO have been In the company Of
the accused, then also the argument would
he stronger. But the commemorative q evil
dence shows that she returned TO the Amen.
can Hotel TO get her dinner about O'Clock.
left about O'Clock, and returned about
O'Clock. And on none OF these occasions
was the prisoner in her company. Besides.
the theory OF the Commonwealth is. that
the design TO murder the deceased was first
conceived In tie hotel about O'Clock.
Now, apply the definition given by Judge
Christian in IGUsS'S Cuss. - Graft. 9I2;
I0cfe Vhich constitute me res 0csfr must b.
sJch as OrC 50 connected Wh tie rerU frdns-
dcfioH or (uc' un0er iHreSfigufi0n as 70 c0nsfi-
rutc n p0rt of IL. II may b. that had the de-
ceased never returned to the hotel after
after leaving II In the morning the note
would Cwhen properly identiiedJ have been
admissible a. a part OF the res gcsf'r. But
Otherwise never. Here. II the COmmOn-
Vealths testimony Is true, the deceased
returned unframed and IN good spirits. for
ij Is shown that she went TO her dinner
nOm her alleged interview with tue ac
cused. Who had up To that time p.annei no
ham towards her.
Mr. Pollard had very nearly finished
his argument when, at > o'clock, the
court adjourned.
The Attorney-General is the next
speaker to follow.