Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-05-07
!sls.e ypen the iorn Ofshs Courts order IN

= =
| n,s<d upon The form Of the Courts order In
the following words "a
IA like Hussines Court con,inne a. ~ sos ~
scrsnm en- ;s ssa ~, hsS ,y a. jane he sa,d
Ihomss j. Csyeus was ss,va, iea e u ana The
the enons 9. me me tsis u his were brought
INTO court IN the custody OF me ss ~ ,,,
nssnns AZ ssv. that the said Thomas j. Ciu-
verius Il guilty or murder IN ,ns hcrsnnan he
sna n va VI riuyerius was rcmsnded to paiLr
the record follows the usual form. ana
shnws clearly that there was a verdict, ana
that = motion was made on June oth 70 set
aside this very verdict rendered the day
the indictment IN In the common.law
| scrm for murder. In Livingstone case "a
Graft this court held that an Indictment
in the common-law form ior muIueI lssooo,
md will support q conviction for murder In
| The first degree. The common-law form OF
indictrn emit charges both degrees OF murder,
and IL depends upon the proof whether the
second degree. See Mitchell vs. State. o
| Yepger $40; 8 Yeager Ga. On page 52o
Judge Green says: This Indictment ior
murder is In the common.law form. An
party with murder, will embrace both cases.
and authorize conviction for either" On
page 53l. Catson. Oh. j., says:
.The defendant here Is indicted for the cri nc
|
bill OF indictment Is murder, according 10 me
| common law and according 10 the second section
Of the penal CODE. Murder IN both VS. dcxrees is
| charged upon him In the bill or Indictment
See. also, Hines rs. State, Humph., 5s7.
In Kennedy Us. The People. 80 y. ", page
| 245, IL was held: IAN indictment Tor muir
der in the common.law form, charging tne
| killing with malice aforethought, Is GOOD:
| Notwithstanding our statute has DIVIDED
| the crime OF murder into different degrees
and verdict finding the accused guilty
as charged In the indictment is conYlc-
ton OF murder in the first degree" (See,
| also, Fitzgerald rs. The People, 81 n. T.,
4Is-426.) The jury was required by law
TO state in their verdict OF what degree OF
murder they find the prisoner guilty hence
| the words-"in the first degree"
Does the record show whether the pri.
| soper was present when the verdict was
| rendered? The record alleges that the pri'
| soner was brought into court. Nointimation
| Is made that the prisoner LETT the court.
| room. The same order was entered
as TO bis presence on each day Of the trial
from May 9Th to June 4th, inclusive. In
Lawrence's case-s0 Graft: s51-this court.
In answering an objection like the one here
| raised, said: But what seems to be conciu-
sive on the subject Is that at the conclusion
OF the proceedings of the court on mat day
| IL is stated In the record that the said
| Charles Lawrence is thereupOn remanded
! TO jaii,' which shows that he had been per-
sonally present during all the proceedings
which were had IN the case on that day..
| II
| the Court did not err In Overriding the mos
| ton in arrest Of Judgment.
After.DiscOvered Evidence.
The ninth bill OF exceptions insists that
| the Court erred In refusing new trial upon
the ground Of after. discovered testimony
| an affidavit OF Dr. Joseph X. Garick-
which sat forth that he had an intimate ac-
| quaintance with the handwriting OF Fannie
| L. Madison: that he had "no question OF
the fact that the note is In her handwriting;
Il ta kotf 10 Iva 10
| handwriting on the envelope Is not that
| OIL. l.. Madison, and that this conviction
| isfounded upon his intimate knowledge OF
the handwriting of +. j.. Madison. &c.
The prisoner knew well and Familiarity
| that DIR. Garlick had been, q few years be-
| FORE the teacher OF the murdered girl, and
| he could, by reasonable diligence. have OBJ
tanned bis testimony. Or. Garlick was ac-
| quaipted with her general handwriting
| from exercises and letters SUI omitted TO him
! as her teacher when schoolgirl some
years before. and which were most prOba-
| bly, executed with deliberation and care.
| lie was now looking at a direction on an
envelope written in great haste and evident
| sudden furry. IL IL much more difficult to
| swear that a writing Is not In PERSONS
| handwriting than TO swear that IL is. DR..
| Gsrlck was not proved or alleged TO be
an expert. The prisoner had had ample
| opportunity to prove by his experts that
| the handwriting Of the direction on
| the envelope was not that OF Miss Madison.
| and after they had examined the pa
| Jers be failed to put them on the
stand Now, after the trial Is over, ne
offers witness , who Is not no,, an eXo
Is positive that the writing on the en-
velope is not genuine. This court cannot
allow so dangerous precedent. Even II
DI. Garlick had sworn on the trial positive
ly that the direction on the envelope was
not In the handwriting or Miss Madison II
would have had no effect uron the verdict.
The jury would simply have thought him
mistaken. II the note was IN her hand
whiting. as 10 which Dr. Garlick swears
there can be no question, why was not also
the direction on the sealed envelope? There
is nothing in the record TO suggest or per
nit The idea that any one changed the
envelope; for besides its being fully and
distinctly identified by the persons who
saw and handled IL, when IL was found no
one had known of the prisoners being I'm
the city, much less in. communication with
the young lady. But when that.note was
torn by Dodson. the clerk, and the frag
ments OF the envelope and the note inside
we're thrown into the waste-basket, on
Saturday evening after he found that
hotel without paying her bill, is
identity W0S dIcd 10 Me exclusion u the
possibility Of Substitution or alteration.
The Hastings Court did not err IN over
ruling the motion for new trial founded
on this affidavit.
We have reviewed this most vOluninous
record OF the proceedings of the Hastings
Court in this protracted aud difficult trial'
and we find no error OF law, or OF fact, which
would Justify this appellate court in inter-
feriDg with the verdict of the jury or the
judgment OF the court.
The prisoner las had fair and impartial
trial. He has been defended both in the
Hastings Court and in this court OF review
by able, experienced, and most faithful
counsel and the law has been INDICATED
in the result.
Justice TO the prisoner, and mercy to all
the innocent public, whom the impunity
and second offence of the prisoner would
"after gall alike demand that be shall
now pay the penalty OF his crime, and,
answering with bis life for his foul deed,
live not TO act another!
The judgment Of the Hastings Court is
affirmed.
Tho Nexf Step.
The Supreme Court OF Appeals will ad-
journ day. Ii Is possible That C.uVeriuss
counsel may make motion for rehear-
| ing. Ifthey do, and until the court refuses
| TO grant IT, the judgment OF afiirnance viii
not be certified down. When II is certified
| down the Hastings Court, at one OF It's
| earliest sittings thereafter, will have the
prisoner brought up to DE resentenced.
The Judgment OF the lower court required
Cluverius to be hanged November goth,
which time having passed, Judge Atkins
will have TO appoint new day.
When Judge Atkins proceeds 10 resen-
tence the prisoner IL ls not at all likely
that he viii give him less than sixty days
OF grace.
Ii Is in the power OF tho Governor either
TO pardon the prisoner or to commute his
sentence TO imprisonment. lfa re. hearing
IL asked and denied, and the Governor
should refuse to interfere with the sentence
OF the court, then Cluverius Is beyond help.
The News Communicated 10 inc PR
sOner TIA jail.
During the delivery OF the opinion of the
court by Judge Fauntleroy, and after It's
effect was known, q reporter OF the Dispatch
called at the jail and was met IN the office
by City. Sergeant Lee, who had arrived but
q few minutes before. Inquiry was made OF
suit To the prisoner. He replied, Take a
seat am going In to see him In @ few
minutes. A friend of his is with him now"
The prisoner could be seen by the reporter
when he entered the Office Of the jail. lie
was seated in a chair; was dressed In q
light-gray spring suit, and had his arm
oarelessly resting upon desk talking to his
| friend. The room Ii used as a dspensary.
A moment or two later Mr.. Lee entered the
room where the prisoner was with his
friend, and remained but few minutes.
and when he returned the Dispatch man
said: well have you told him? and what
did he have TO say?"
HE said 10 me that he had already
been informed OF the decision by the friend
who is present.
"Did you tell him the opinion OF the
court 2"
YES" replied serge cant Lee; "he said he
| was surprised ct the opinion, and after
wards qualified his remark by saying that
| he hoped for different result
GLOW did he appear TO take it?"
He took 1t very calmly; spoke slowly
| and thouphtfni lint To mo ha seamad a