Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-05-07

b.expressed opinion as to the result? Ordi'
nRrily one expeC Cts what he desires. and be's
upOn the accomplishment of what he eX-
poets. Usually the mere fact or making a
bet indicates "A bias
in Essex Is. McI'herEOn. Gi Illinois. $40.
the Court sald: For furor n set IN tue
tIial Of cause upon the result OF which Z
has "A wager depending = a gross impro-
pIi6y and offensive TO the eense OF Justice.
The HustDgs Court did not err IN rejecting
GoCde. the ground OF his exclusion having
been clearly proved by the evidence before
u G court In suppOr; offhe challenge and
found 10 be neither "vague. uncertain. nor
Irrelevant" but distinct, positive aud rele-
want.
yenire Facias.
III. The MIRA bill OF exceptions is taken
10 the method OF empanelllng the jury.
The CosTt proceeded 10 examine the venire-
men summoned under the several success
siVe writs of rcnfrc J0cidS uniil (alter the
examination of over 900 sixteen persons
free fiOm exception Hud qualined by Ia"
had been selected and directed TO take their
places upon the panel. and the list OF these
sixteen WIS submitted 10 the accused In
order that ne miebtstIlke I'll four Danes-
the 10 IL aiming twelve tocOnstitute the juEy
for his trial. IL was insisted by the accused
that the Cont should proceed with the
examination Of the venirernen upon their
tOir dire until fWcIfH.fOUr PERSONS free uOD
exception had been obtained; that sixteen
twenty -four. snd inen the list OF sixteen.
thus obtdmed, submitted to the accused.
The Court oyeTIuled this objection, ana
the prisoner excepted.
In his exception there Is no merit. The
Court pToct ded in street conformity with
the law as IT has been clearly eXpOunded and
decided by this court in the recent cases.
not yet reported, Of Hal rs Commonwealth
Honesty Is. commonwealth. Banks Is.
Commonv ealth the first decided at
WStheyille during the late term, and the
last two decided al the January term, 1850
at Richmond. See, also. Richards. Fry q
Farer as Commonwealth, decided AT tht
November term. 1855, OF this court, and
not yet reported.
". The fourth bill OF exceptions Is taken
TO the action OF the Court IN permitting Ger
tain questions 70 be prupOunded To the w.t.
ness A. W. Archer, which questions are set
forth IN the bill, and alleged 10 be lead
ing
distinct rulings OF the Court 10 he objected
10 in one bin. Each ruling must Oe the
suhject Of a separate bill-each objection
must stand on It's own merits. \ bin OF eX-
ceptioHs is required TO be "A specific ana den
niie allegation OF error-not jungle OF OBJ
jections. (Harman IS. City OF Lyach-
burg. 81 Graft. 87.) Powell App: p.
2ll-l2-13. Here the bill Of exceptions SETS
forth objections as being 10 two questions.
alleged TO be leading, which were asked Al
different times. and 10 the refusal OF the
ton and answer pTopounded 10 and given
by this witness as being Illegal and irrele-
want
But q critical notice OF the two questions
objected to VIII show that they were not
leading or otherwise improper questions /;
and that both the questions and the an
swers 10 them were legal aud relevant.
Refore either ofthe said questions was put
10 the witness Archer he nad testliied that
be had had an Interview and converse
ton with the prisoner al the jail, out that
he did not remember the details OF the
couN ersation: and both the Court and the
Attorney for the Commonwealth had en-
GeaVored TO get the witness 10 narfate the
conversation. and had failed. Then tue
fist OF The said questions was put: DO
you remember whether IN the Jall you
asked him II he had ever seen you before
The other question objected to reads as
follows: DO you remember whether at
the jsil you bad ary conversation with him
or not about when he had last seen Miss
Madison" These questions are not lead
ing. but are merely Introductory. They
are ss indefinite In form as possible under
The circumstances and they ask no lnfor
nation as TO what the prisoner had said.
What are leading questions? " III snould
never be forgotten that leading Is a relative.
not an absolute. term. There Is no such
thing as leading In the abstract; for the
Identical form OF question which would be
leading OF the grossest Kind IN one case or
state OF facts, might be not only unob-
ltCllODHDlts Dui lut WY AAAtoh AhOtC ~
Interrogation, in another (best on EYid.,
Amer. Edition, vol, sect. GAL; Phll.
ENid., 8 Amer. Edition, y. 745, Note o13. 7
a. In cases Of conversations, admissions aud
agreements you may draw the witnesses .
attention TO the subject, occasion, Time.
place, person, and ask directly whether
such person said anything on the sub ecL
thus brought under his attention; and u
answered Yes, then what did he say
~ Phil on EVid., 8 Amer. ed p. TAI. Note
575.) "A question is Objectionable as leading
when IL suggests the answer, not when
IL merely directs the attention OF the w.t.
ness to the subject respecting which ne Is
questioned &C, &C.
"a witness who deposes 10 a conversation with the
accused, ay,aiter having first xhausied his rnen-
ory IN answering the question that took place a.
it;" be further asked whether anything was said
ON such = subject 1. G., the subject matt>r o.
the ind ictfuent. best on Evidence, l. Amer. I'll
Te,ied by this rule and these authorities
the questions objected to were perfectly
nroper-beiDg put 10 a witness who mad de-
nosed TO a cOnVe rsatiOn with tue prisoner.
INT Tho had stated his Inability OF memory
As TO the details OF the conversation; and
being Intended only 10 draw the attention
OF the witness 10 certain subjects discussed
i'm The conversation: and IN so doing the
onestions are confined 10 what the witness
NAV have aid, and not the prisoner
The fourth bill OF exceptions presents no
ground for reversal.
I.uurN (Urtfs hctttFs
v. The fcth bill OF exceptions Is taken to
the alleged error Of the Court IN allowing
TO be read 10 the jury as evidence certain
letter purportipg 10 have been Wrllsn 10
FANNIE Lillian Madison (the deceased) by
Miss Laura N. Curtis.
Before this Curtis letter" & was admitted lh
by tle Court. evidence tAs We h res3rn snSmsI ssn
DIe Lillian Madison by drowning, preceded py
at least partial insensibiiy; ina ner ,sn ae h,t
vel gloves, and cloth sa,ehel OF ciolnihs ns sl
been 80 scat cred In different Place "i.niu ',s s
city between .ihe hours Of 81 O'Clock 4. VI; o.
March 18Th and o'clock A. ". on March i4ua,
when her dead body was touaa, rs 70 maae ~ sn
reasonable 10 suppose that she had commune !,
srictds; that tue marks upon her iaes ,hs, 1na
hands and her Z, ,nersl appearance, shower tlas
shr had heen frst struck on the head by some per.
son and then thrown Into the water tnat sls n1n
not been In the water over twelve nonls, ia,',,i y
20 long, and that she was e., hobsn, na,,
presnant with child ana e,,osnOo ,nn nr,sonsr
been offered 70 prove that me Dis pmsomer ,,',r
had had an opportunity 20 sedaee her-a yosng sne %
had gone 70 Mrs. Margaret 4: Dick,hsons 80 !, ~
bath county. Va. IN October, 1881, A. ssaon,a %
- a 1t.ess ~ =. MS D, UultF