Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-03-31

and would have had to sink into his
grave covered with infamy if it had
come out that he was the seducer OF
his cousin be Christian young man ;
he the assistant superintendent Of a
Sunday school; he who stood so high
in bis neighborhood.
BELLE ISLE.
The Bell-Isle testimony was briefly
summed up, and said Colonel Aylett
The defence is again conspicuous for
the wisdom it displays in that the Belle
Isle witnesses are not referred to.
There are seven Of these witnesses. All
Of them identify Cluyerius only one
of them saw the dead woman. lie
identified her. The rest described her
appearance and Dress"
THE SCRATCHED HAND, sc.
"The last line that Lillian ever
penned," said Colonel Aylett, "was a
lie written by her to save her cousin
Tommie." lie had reference to the
postal-card received by Mrs. Tunstall
after Lillian's death. This postal-card
was in the handwriting Of the deceased.
He further asserted that Cluverius was
the last person in possession Of the
deceased before she started on the
journey of death. lie reviewed all the
testimony in the case, referring to the
scratches on Cluverius's hand, the
several stories about how they got
there, and many Of the other promi-
nent facts adduced at the trial.
"Tbe theory Of the Commonwealth
is" said Colonel Aylett, that these
scars were placed there by the deceased
while he was trying to silence her dying
screams"
UNIMPEACHABLE.
In concluding Colonel Aylett said
the Commonwealth had examined over
one hundred witnesses and not one Of
them had been impeached or success
fully contradicted. Where was there a
parallel to this? Here were people
brought together from their homes by
mountains, by sea; here were farmers,
merchants, ministers, clerks, judges.
lawyers, mechanics, laborers here were
artisans from "the Cyclopean fires Of
Belle Isle " ; here were ladies' of loftest
types; here were courtesans from dens
Of iniquity-each one contributing a
part to the conviction Of this criminal,
and each and all absolutely unimpeached.
THE FOUR ELEMENTS,
said Colonel Aylett, in ending his
Argument, " Fire, earth, air, and water,
all testify against the prisoner.
Fire-the lamplight disclosing his
features to DR.. Stratton and others.
"Water testifies against him when it
surIenders her body at the reservoir
and her bundle in the river.
The Earth upturns her scared bo-
som and discloses his tracks on his
muIderous errand, and the wings OF
Heaven bear her dying screams and
place them in the ears Of an ignorant
negro"
u say" said Colonel Aylett, as he
was about to take his seat, having
spoken two hours. "that these facts
ale furnished by the record. 1t is no
fancy sketch Of mine-no attempt at
rhetoric or oratory."
Hon. II. Il. Pollard.
Mr.. Pollard, Of counsel for prisoner,
aid that it was a painful duty to at
empt TO bring the court down from the
loity heights TO which the oratory OF
Colonel Aylett had carried them to a
consideration OF the facts, and he
would show from the record exactly
what the facts are.
Mr.. Pollard then rapidly discussed
the alleged incompetency of the jurors
LaIke and Goode, and then he insisted
that the questions asked Mr.. Archer by
the Attorney for the Commonwealth
were leading and illegal.
Said he:
"A question may he Objectionable be-
cause leading. and II may also be Oh sction-
able because u both itddS TO the answer
desired and also assumes fact proved
which is not admitted by the opposite side.
Now these questions are Objectionable tor
both reasons. Let us see. The last was -
follows: 10 you remember whether Ia
iall you had any conversation with him or
not about when he had last seen Miss Madi-
son?' II assumes that he had such a con-
NeisatiOn. and II the witness SAYS that he
does not remember 10, leaves the impress
sion on the minds OF the Jury that there was
sucn a conversation. such impression cOuid
not be removed by the accused. because
there would only be the assumption Of
counsel. insidioGhly Injected into the minds
of the jury. but none the less effective. The
cases and authorities referred 10 in the pee
titlon and IN reply to Commonwealth :
here taken
THE TORN NOTE.
Next Mr.. Pollard attacked the
grounds upon which the 4" Laura Cur
It's" letter was admitted. After that
he proceeded to the great question:
" the torn note ''-contending that it
rever ought to have been admitted ;
that Judge Atkins erred in reconsider
ing his decision not to allow the note to
be put in evidence.
Said Mr.. Pollard:
Iiis conceded 10y the Commonwealth that |
IL is necessary 20 identify the note produced |
as the Veritable note written by the de-
ceased and dispatched by the boy (whO has |
not been produced To the prisoner The |
evidence Of the identity Of the note pr0- |
ducsd with the one returned by the boy il |
meagre enough. IL is not beyond a reason
a BILE doubt as IL should be in order TO Justify |
It's Introduction, but when another link Is |
TO be supplled-viz.. that the note returned |
is the one disDdtchcd--the evidence is utter |
ly Inadequate IL IS entirely presum ptive- |
The boy carried away n |
note. to whom addressed nobody knows he |
returned note addressed 10 +. J. Clemens |
or 10 II. j. Cluyerius" That Is all that eau |
he said of IL.
ahe Court below. even after the Common. |
wealth had mended lis holt as 10 the |
Identity OF the note, and after IL had con-
cluded 10 admit 1t. doubfed rs TO the correct
ness OF Its conclusions and eX pressed itself /
rs follows: This is the only question |
about which | have any doubt On all
other questions was always OF the opinion |
that IL was admissible. | tnink that 10 Is
having been identified as the |
note delivered TO the messenger. boy and
returned by the boy 10 DodsOn. Record,
page 2s2. Ought the Court 10 have admit.
led The note as long as IL doubted becomes
all interesting and novel question. In
criminal case should not the Court. ns well
as the iuIy, solve every reasonable doubt
in favor OF the accused
one Of the most intelligent and learned |
trial Judges before whom ever appeared as |
counsel so held in an important case in
which one OF the judges of this court was
engaged a. counsel Tor the defence Doubt
Ing as TO whether statute made an act
rot in Itself Bidi0 IN Sc an offence. the Learn
ed Judge sustained demurrer 10 the in
A iictment and discharged the accused
IL is vain 10 say. a. the learned counsel do
Al page so OF the brief. that Hunt swore
hos Tho anvelope Offered In evidence WAS |