Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-03-30
{" TIE TORN NOTE"
W. W. a BEv. T. CRcNP.
OF Counsel for Appellant.

lVhN NOl
Mr.. Crump then went on to argue
the points raised in the bill Of excep-
tions, devoting most Of his time, how
ever, to " the torn note"
This was the note written by Lillian
to Cluverius. 1t is supposed to have
been in answer to one written her by
him and sent to the American Hotel by
that colored boy who has never been
found. This note was placed in the hands
ofthat boy. He went out to deligerit, but
came back and said that he could not
find "the gentleman" The note, torn
into several pieces, finally found its
way to the waste-basket in the hotel
Office, whence, after the body was found,
it was rescued, pasted together, and
read, "I'll be there as soon as posi-
BILE. So do wait for me-" There was
no name on the note-neither address
nor signature but on the eHrelope was
what was first supposed to be I. j.
Clemens, but what examined later by
an expert tMr. W. R. Quarles) proved
sr','-, :" fIG sys
Iais - torn note" was the subject of
great contention in the court below, and
Judge Atkins at first ruled it out, but
upon recalling two witnesses who de-
clared that the note brought back was
the same note the boy took out, &C., the
note was admitted. On this point coun-
sci for Cluverius say:
The messenger boy Is the only person who
could have testified upon the exact ques-
ton passed upon by the Court and without
his testimony IL is impossible 10 determine
whether he returned 10 the hotel the same
note that Hunt had testified ne gave him
las coming from Lillian. The proper weight
10 he given "a the testimony OF the negro
Hunt should be Judged by the fact that
he positively testified that when the
scraps OF the envelope were put to
gether Dodson said: Here's the name
L. j. Cluyerius; the letter that ! tore
up and threw In the scrap basket.
This was all the fanciful Imagining OF a
negro, for DodsoD testines that when the
scraps were put together neither he nor
any ne present could make out the name.
except that 10 might be 1T. j. Clemens.
The note was then delived 10 Detective
Wren, VINO was present. And II IL 10 be
observed that although itwent into Nren's
hands with an endorsement supposed by
Dodson TO be II. ]. Clemens" IL came out
OF Wren's hands as addressed TO IT. j.
Ciuverius. and yet Wren was not put upon
ihe stand 10 supply this gap in the history
OF the note and sub 10 cross exa nina
tiOn upon this point. This important. be-
cause we are unable 10 find that Dodson les
tined specifically that the endorsement on
TIE note exhibited IN court Was exactly the
same endorse hG made out to be II.
J. Clemens on the note collected by him
nom the scrap.basket; he endeaNors to
identify 10 by other marks.
We respectfully insist that the Identity or
the note was not sufficiently established 10
Justify lis Introduction.
We Insist that IL Il clear that the note in
question j. inadmissible under the dOcirine
of rcS Oesf0, although the present condition
OF that doctrine Is somewhat confused b.
reason Of the isdennite language OF the
textbooks and the unsettled condition Of
the authorities on the subject.
Therefore the only safe guide we can take
il what can be gathered from the utter.
auces Of this conrt upon the question and
We humbly submit that this court has
plainly established the rule 10 be observed
in prosecuting an enquiry whether par
ucuiar piece OF testimony is part OF the
res 0csfO. In the following cases this ques-
ton was before this court: Rawlings as.
Commonwealth. l Leigh, 5sl; Little = case,
rs Graft, 923-4; llayness case. - Graft,
gi2: Paynes case. 81 Craft. s53: Pom
deNter's case. 3S Graft. 76o; Kirby ~.
Commonwealth n Va, Gsl; Joyce : case.
IS Va, 2s7.
In some OF these cases occurrences or de.
claIatiOns prior TO the com mission OF the
alleged crime were offered in evidence; In
pthers subsequent acts or statements con d.
rnuted the tes lmony offered. We do not
ropose TO review these cases al length. II
sufficient 10 state that the principle plain
underlying them all was mat IA fact must
directly connected with the issue being
lied in order To come within the RS ge,f's.
Mr.. Crump bad nearly concluded his
argument when-at 2:30-the court
adjourned to meet at ll:30 this morn
ing.
Colonel Aylett will be the next
speaker.