Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-02-11

what now Is the PROOF tnht ne was ~
the Exchange Hotel, In communies''oh
i. She told Mrs. Dickinson before leaving
Bath county that the prisoner would meet
her.
2. That on her return 10 Bath county she
told that lady that the prisoner ala uee'
her.
8 be was in the city OF Richmond daring
the 9th day OF January-the day the sl''
spent here.
4. He was seen by an acquaintance on
that day in the neighborhood OF the tN-
change Hotel, crossing the street from
point opposite the ladies' entrance TO that
botel
D She was here under an assumed name.
and he more probably than all other men
knew her false name. because II was the
one thai he had been known 10 assume.
O. Two dsinierested honest witnesses
swear that they saw him on that day IN
curing for her at that hotel. One OF them
saw him there three times on that day
talking with The girl.
Hence we Insist that both the circum-
stantial and direct proof clearly establish
that The prisoner was IN communication
with the murdered girl at the Exchange
Hotel on tnat day.
Having established that they were thus
together the inquiry arises Why were tney
together Why had she left Bath county
OH false preteXtf She was here under
false pretence. She did not come down. AZ
expected to die. That not being her reason
for coming, What was II? let 10 be Temem-
bered that she had been seduced and was
pregnant. Is II not more than probable tnat
she came 10 see him who had ruined her?
Is not that strong probability rendered
certainty when the only man sne IS seen
with Is he At whom all the proof points as
her Seducer?
HER BETRAYER.
II such was her motive IN coming 10
Richmond. what was the pTisoners' why
was he IN Intercourse with his cousin when
she WAS here under an assumed namcP IL
he was lguOlant Of her condition, why was
he silently permitting her so Ia act . How
does IL happen that ne should be with her
bow does IL happen that he, who alone had
had an opportunity 10 rob her of her virtue,
should be with her while here under an as
sumed name? How does 10 happen that he.
IN whose handwriting a tale Ol seduction
had been found In her trun X, should be with
this girl who had been scduced? How does
10 happen that lie should BE- with this Ireg
uant girl. who was travelling under the
same false name that he had been known
To- usc .
All these questions cannot be answered
by such words a. coincidence chance. sup
pose that II was by chance that she became
Possessed Of he poem. suppose mat II was
by chance that she assumed his false name.
suppose that 10 was by chance that he was
In The city OF Richmond. Yet IL was not by
chance that ne met her ON January 6th,
for ho came into the hoiei. cd ran his hand
down the register and asked II this lady was
IN" There was 10 chance In his going
up to her room on three occasions that day.
1heie was no chance IN MS waiting for
her IN the psrlor that evening, as he said
he would about the time she was last seen
In the hOlel that eVenlnt or that night
We submit That such circumstances can
rot be explained or rather brushed aside.
by the suggestion Of chance ' There j.
hut one solution that accounts for each
and every one OF them that Is, the prisoner
Was the father OF the child.
That answer agrees with the fact that he
alone had an opportunity 20 seduce.
That answer accounts for her possession
Of the vulgar poem.
mat answer accounts FOR Ma anxiety IN
September TOR her 10 be- speedily married.
That answer accounts for his being In
Richmond while She Is here both IN Jauu.
AIRY and Mar h.
That answer accounts for her telling ars.
Dickinson that the prisoner "ould and did
meet her.
That answer accounts for her using his
ialte name.
That answer accounts for hiscalliug upon
her 20 frequently at the hOtei on January
9Th.
Ard that answer contradicts no fact In the
record. As further proof that he was her
s,ducer. We call attention to the fact that
She EFF the Exchange that night with HIM
8 10 Nlu lDl return huI II Alt htNt iuOtu4Ak.
MORE THAN CousINLY ISTfNACY.
But I'm addition to the above
facts The record shows. as further proof
that he robbed her ~ her virtue that she
again comes 10 the city Of Richmond under
a false pTeteucc on March 18Th; that she
again registered under his assumed maine
That he ls again IN the city that he and
She are together during the day, and tina {
he takes hcr tu "a house OF lll.repuie, None
OF the testimony bearing on his intercOune e
with her on March 18Th, except as 10 their
yislttu the house OF ill-faue. VIII be now
critically examined. II VIII nave 10 boz
gone INTO IA detail further on. We shai.
content ourselves now with asking the
Court that n that evidence shows that
thcy weI. together during that hay l,
March under the cirumsiapces above
stated that % Will le REGARDED a. we think
IL should be regarded. as proof Of their be-
Ing on terms Of more Than cousinly inti.
macy.
THE MAN WITH 4 MOTIVE.
We submit that the above eyi.
dence proves hey Ond a rodsoHdbic doubt and
iu moral certainty that the prisoner
robbed his cousin Of her virtue.
Hence the prisoner had a mOtiyc-his So
cial, his professional his religious standing
were ali at stake. Within a month be
would bc disglaced. unless he married her.
II was either marriage. Hight, or murder.
And besides the fact mat his re putatiOn and
standing were at stake he would lose, n h Is
disgrace became known. the lady 10 whom
he was engaged. She would doubtless have
discarded hIm. lie would have doubtless
been driven from his home at his auut's
Mrs. 1upsiHllS. she would scarcely have
allowed hun to remain there when she
ltafut that he had ruined her niece and his
cousin. We repeai-it was marriage Hight
or murder. The inst would not have re-
leased him from the disgrace OF having Sc
duced his cousin. The second he rejected
because be loved the comforts Of Mrs. Tun-
stalls home too dearly To give them up.
Flight would have thIown him homeless.
Ieunlless ana amid strangers into the
world. lie had Away gratined too selfshly
his wishes 10 sacrifice hlmteh. lie chose the
last.
TIE MANS OPPORTUNITY.
Next the brief considers that. having
now a murder, and the prisoner with a
motive for 1t, the question arises; Did
be have an opportunity to murder her
They say yes, and proceed to state the
evidence as to the visit Of Cluyerius
and Lillian to Richmond in March; the
absence Of any proof that he had any
business here her arrival at the Ame-
rican Hotel his visits there; the
tom note the visit to the house Of
Clara Anderson and Mary Curtis the
fact that Mr. Morgan Treat to the
best Of his knowledge and belief saw
prisoner enter the door Of the American
Hotel on the evening before the
murder about o'clock, and saw
him pass towards the register.
4" lie is next seen by the night clerk at
the American Hotel, Mr.. ". +. Dillard.
lie says On that night gentleman
called to see the occupant Of Room Il. .
between the hours Of and - o'clock.
gave him a card to write his name on,
and called the porter to send his card
up, telling the porter to show the gen.
tleman the parlor. gave him blank
card 10 write his name upon, and then
gave the card to the porter William
Tyler, and the gentleman started to
the parlor with the porter. '"
And so examining and reviewing the
evidence, including that Of Mr.. James,
they come down to the witness Tyler,
who saw Cluyerius and Lillian meet
in the parlor of the American Hotel /;
heard the conversation which fore
shadowed the afterwards-discovered
Curtis letter, &C., &c, and then coun-
sci close up this feature of their case
as follows. lSub-headings are ourSl {:
THK MAN TYLER SAW.
Thus lt is seen that Tyler does not stand
alone. Livery material statement OF his Is
borne out by other evidence In the cause.
" hen ne Eays he is certain that the pris-
oner was the young man, be is also strongly
backed up by the proof in the cause.
~ nj q N ct that the prlsOneT sedaceh