Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-02-11
CLUVERIUS'S CASE.
TIE ECOMMONWEALTHS BRIEF
The Brisr or the states Attorneys Prepared
for Tho supreme Cour, and to BE- used In the
Trial CT Prisoners Appeal.

On me lJtH VI JuHe, 1000, eHO
Judge Of the Hastings Court Of Rich
mond, in accordance with the finding OF
the jury sworn to try the case, SEN
fenced Thomas j. Cluyerius to be
hanged for the murder Of Fannie Lillian
Madison, and November Goth was fixed
for the day Of execution. Before that
day the Supreme Court Of Appeals,
upon the prayer Of the prisoner, issued
a writ Of error and sUperSededs to the
judgment of the Hastings Court, and
about The Sth Of March next the case
will come up in the Supreme Court for
trial, and that tribunal will be called
upon 10 determine if the judgment of
the Hastings Court shall be affirmed or
reversed.
The prisoner, who has been confined
in Jail since his arrest in March last, in
making bis appeal to the Supreme Court
presented the bills Of exceptions taken
during the trial on the rulings Of the
Court, and in his petition further set
forth his reasons for claiming that the
judgment entered against him was erro-
neopss Now, Hon. R. a. Ayers, At
tome +General. and Messrs. Charles V.
Meredith and w. r. Ayleu, who prose-
cuted the case in the Hastings Court,
have fled their brief, which is, in ef-
feet, an answer to the prisoners peti.
ton. Upon these printed statements
and such others as may be hereafter
fled, and upon oral argument, the Su-
preme Court Of Virginia will decide
whether the judgment Of the llustings
Court ought to be affirmed or reversed.
If affirmed, the prisoner has nothing
but the hope of Executive clemency
between him and death on the scat
fold. If reversed. the case goes back
to the Hastings Court, which will de-
eide whether it is worth while to have
a new trial or to enter a Roiie proseqW.
/ 1t il understood that the case will
be called for trial in the Supreme Court
on March the Sth but whether the ar
gument will then proceed or not will
depend upon circumstances.
THE COUNSEL.
The Attorney-General appears in
this case, as he does in all Common
wealth cases in the Supreme Court,
but it is fair to presume that the labor
Of preparing the brief has fallen chiefly
upon Mr.. Meredith and Colonel Aylett.
| The Richmond attorney for the Com
monwealth being so situated that he
could not prosecute this case, these
two gentlemen. answering the public
voice for their services, without fee or
reward. undertook to represent the
Commonwealth, and prosecuted the
prisoner to conviction. Their services
IN the appellate court are practically
Indispensable to the Commonwealth,
and hence it is that the brief appears
signed by X. A. Ayers, Attorney
General; c. V. Meredith, and W. r.
Aylett.
THE BRIEF.
The brief makes ninety-fve pages in
print. 1t is written with that strong
grasp, terseness, and yigor which cha
racteFized the prosecution in the lower
court. They take up the nine bills of
/ exception and examine them one by one,
and brlng to the consideration of them
/ all OF their ability and learning bat
for the public the chief question of in
terest with which they deal-that in
which there is least legal technicaIity-
is whether on the trial the Common
wealth produced sufficient evidence to
Justify the verdict found.
CORPUS DELICTI.
They first address themselves to the
corpus delicti, and declare that what
ever may be the rule as laid down in
Smiths case or according to the literal
meaning Of the words in Ryan's case,
still in this case there is no difficulty,
for there is ample proof outside Of
that that connects the prisoner with the
case to prove that Fannie l.. Madison
came to her death by the criminal
agency Of another"
And then they proceed to show
and that without introducing the name
Of Cluyerius-that the death was caused
by murder.
The existence OF fresh tracks " of a
male and female walking side by side -;
the scattered clothing. the veil on Dun
stans fence, aud the satchel found in
the river, and long line Of other cir
cumstances, they claim, justify them
in this conclusion, and they say We
submit that, viewed without regard to
the proof showing that the prisoner
murdered her, the idea OF suicide IS
totally untenable, whether looked at
simply as to the dead body and the i'm
mediately surrounding circumstances,
or looked at with the additional proofs
furnished by her garments.
The girl was found dead. She did not
commit suicide. Then she was mur-
deed."
WHO WAS THE MURDERER?
"Who was her murderer? When
that question cannot be answered, a. it
cannot in this case, by the testimony Of
some one who saw the crime, it becomes
necessary to inquire, Who had motive
to take her life To the latter inquiry
We ask the Courts attention. Ii is an
undisputed fact that the girl, an unmar-
red woman, was pregnant. 1t is not
denied that the child was conceived
somewhere about the middle Of July,
1884. Who was its father"
Then follows a recital of the evidence
as to the visits of Cluverius to Mr.. John
Walkers; her departure for Bath
county their correspondence the dis
coyery Of the lewd poetry lin his hand
writing in her trunk his solicitude
that she should marry " that fellow "
and their clandestne meeting at the
Exchange Hotel in January.
TIE ExCBAsGE HOTEL MEETING AND THE
M0UsTACHE.
But IL is Insisted by the prisoner
that both Mr.. Archers and Henrietta
Wimbush testimony show that IL could
not have been the prisoner because they
| both stated that the young man they saw
had a moustache. lt is Insisted that the
preoner never IN his life wore q m0ustaene.
They called eleven witnesses from the
| friends ard acQuaiutances Of the prisoner
| 10 prove that he never wore InOustache.
| They all testified that they never saw him
| with one. go
Ion lie other hand the Commonwealth
| offered from among those living in his
| county. or King William county. SIX wit
pe,ges who testified that they had seen
him with one some Of the witnesses men
tinned the occasion q nd stated the crcum-