Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-02-10
TWO LUCKY WOMEN.
MARY D. WALLER AND JENNIE BoeGs
GRAETgD A NEW TRIAL.
A Case Where an Aged Man aud His Sister
WeTe Believed to Have Been Terribly
Beaten by Two Negroes.

Tn the llth OF June, 1886. in the
county ofSpotsylvania, two very aged peo-
ple--W S. +. Waller and his sister, Miss
Jane Waller-had their residence, near
Walters church, entered. and both we're
badly beaten with clubs or other blunt
Instruments 1t was charged that the
crime was committed by two young col
ored women living on the premises
Mary Dahney Waller andJenDie Boggs-
who had free access TO the house, and
that it followed upon the white people
discovering that the negroes had been
robbing them of money.
Accused were tried and found guilty OF
unlawful assault, and their term OF i'm
prisonment fixed at two years. From the
County Court they appealed to the Cir
cult Court, and being unsuccessful there,
thence appealed to the Supreme Court Of
Appeals. A large number Of errors we're
assigned, all of which were disposed Of
as OF no consequence, and then Judge
Hinton, VINO rendered the opinion of the
court, said
REASONS FOR NEw TRIAL.
But the Court also refused to give the
second instruction as asked by the nc
cused, and gave in lien thereof an in
struction Of its own. In this we think
IT erred.
The object OF the second instruction
was to present to the jUIy the PROPOSE
iion that the identity of the accused with
the persons who committed the assault
should be established bCyOnd rc0sOndbLe
dOubh To refuse this instruction and
give in lieu thereof the one which it
gave was calculated to create the i'm
preston upon the minds of the jury that
the identity of the accused with the per
petrators of the crime might be estab-
lished by a lesser degree OF proof than
the law requires. Che Court should
have given the second instruction as
asked, or, at least. an instruction which
was plainly Its exact equivalent.
The court is also OF opinion that the
facts presented in the record could not
Justify q verdict of conviction in this
case. The only inculpatory facts dis
closed by the certificate, which is ex-
tremely meagre, are the larceny of the
money, the flight of the accused and the
pretended ignorance of the accused of
the fact that Mr. Waller aud his sister
had been assaied and beaten after this
fact had been communicated to them.
But all Of these facts are susceptl-
bile of reasonable explanations furnish
ed by the certificate of facts itself.
The evidence of the larceny was only
relevant rs furnishing a motive for the
assault The flight might have been oc-
caSioned by the fear of punishment, for,
as the certificate shows w. >. +. Waller
was passionate man, who had told his
servants that whenever he got in a pas
sion they had better get out of his way.
And on this occasion he was not only IN
a passion. but armed with loaded gun
and stick. And as to the pretended
denial of any knowledge that Mr.. Waller
and his sister had been beaten, that GER
tainlv. although plainly a falsehood, has
not the slightest tendency TO show that
they were the guilty agents. On the
other hand, the absolute failure to idcn-
tify either Of the persons or sex of the
asSailant is a pregnant circumstance IN
favor of the accused. There is IN this
case proof Of what may or may not have
been n motive for the assault but this
does not establish that the accused were
necessarily the guilty parties.
The conclusion OF the court, therefore,
is that a writ of error should have been
awarded by the Judge of the Circuit
Court and that the judgment of the
County Court is erroneous AMI must be
reversed. the verdict set aside, and the
cause remanded for a new trial to be had
therein.