Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-05-08
THE FATAL LETTER.
ANOTHER DAY IN TIE CELEBRATED
MARKS CASE.
Mrs. Balm on the stand Again-Ths jury
Sent Ont Twice-Interestin
Testimony.
rsnn.I.l ,olnrrnm 20 the pI.pateh.l

Especial telegram 80 tho Dispaioh.l
Srssxx CorprYorsg via SrONY GEEK. Nav
S.-Although fifteen witnesses were sworn
for The Commonwealth in tho Narks-Batn
murder trial, and though OILY the fourth one
NJ these il on The stand at this writing. ;here
tss fair chance Of the prosecution resting
their case either tonight or tomorrow morn
ing. because some OF the fifteen Will be beld
in reserve tor the purpose 81 rebuttal. When
the defence shall develop their side OF the
issue the tug OF war Will come, the sensa.
f,oual features, II any there be, Of tue tiiN
win come 10 light. and the termination OF the
case can he then predicted win some oeSIee
Of ACCURACY. Although counsel lot tue
nr,-ecufion and for the defence are
both proeeeding with great watcntul-
ness and care respscing the interests
committed 10 their charge, thc u'St
OF feeHpg and the most precise courtesy
marks their stfitude 10 each other ana 10 the
witnesses No attempt * being made Ak eX-
hihitioos Of that sham nrus9ueness oi ihicI-
cc1rse In tho one case nor Al ihst DuHuO|lhS
IN the Other which so frequently are DIS
agreeable Gestures Of trials OF this SORT TN
the one hand II l. prosecution, not perSecn>
non: on the other hsnd there is due regard
u the interests 81 the accused but no cap
tious sRd trivial objections. which accom-
plfsh nothing, delay the progress oil The case
and weary court and jury. Every one con-
nected with Tho conduct OF the trtal appears
Impressed with the socmnity OF the issue
upon which lie is sisAcd.
A STRONG IMPRESSION.
Mrs. Bain's direct testimony made q
strong impression. II remains 10 be seen
how far the cFoss-exaninatOn 0y the defence
Will be able 10 neutyalizc It's enect. she
came into court to-day, escorted 10y her
fsfher-in.aw, shortly alter the opening OF
fhe court. aud her crosS-eXsmlnstion was nt
orce nroceeded with bv Mr.. Mcllwaine:
q. How long had Won and your husband
b.en AZ the house Of MIR. -. A. Marks be-
fore the shooting which you have de-
scrIbed:
A. can't tell; think some five OF ten
minutes.
q. During the course OF your direct ex.
animation Won did not mention sallie Marks
at all Was she not present both before ana
At the time Of the shooting
A. She was. She was on the porch
shor, time before the shooting.
o Is she or not the sister OF Carleton
Marks the prisoner
A. She is said TO be.
Q. DO you not know the fact that she Is his
sister:
A. Yes. She Is said to be Mr.. and Mrs.
Msrks's daughter. aud Carleton i said TO be
their son. 30 that she must be bis sister.
q. Have Won not been a near neighbOr and
friend Of the family for long while before
the shooting
A. have been q near ncighbOr for about
six yesrs-Since ! have been married-and
friend also.
O. Please state who were present with YOU
q, the time Of and Immediately preceding the
shooting;
A. My husband was with me- Mrs. D. a.
Marks aud Sallie were on The porch.
.. WHIST were your relative positions?
A. We were sn the ground in front OF the
porch. and they were on the porch. was
standing in front OF Mrs. Marks and Sallic
WAS on Mrs. Marbs's tight, and my husband
was on my right.
Q. on exactly what part Of the porch was
Mrs MARKS standing:
A. As we went up my husband stopped in
front of the steps as you go TO the porch
was on his lett. Mrs. Marks was IN front Of
me.
q. Were Won aud Mr.. Balm talking, and II
so, 10 whom. from the time Mrs. Marks
came ont Of the house until the shooting oc-
Cured:
A. We were talking 10 Mrs. Marks, but
not both Of Us st the same time. | asked TO
zee Salie, and she came out.
NOT PLEASANT.
O. Was the conversation OF q pleasant
character, or was it 50 unpleasant as greatly
to excite the parties engaged:
A. II was not nieaSani.
q. Was IT no; m fact OF such a character as
greatly TO excite Won:
A. The conversation was exciting some,
but not TO q great extent with me.
Q. Did Mr. Balm hsye anything in his hand
when he came 10 Nh. Marks's house with
YOU; and. II 20. did he keep IL in his hand
after the interview you have referred TO COM
Inenced!
A. / did not see anything. lie had no.
thing IN his hand that know Of.
q. Did he not baye letter IN his hand, or
note, during the conversation:
A. did not see 1t; he had it in his
pocket
q. When did he put it in his pocket?
A. In his store.
q. When was the last time you saw this
letter before the shooting;
\. saw him hand 1t 20 Mr.. Barker, our
clerk in the store, 10 read. MIR. Barker
handed 1t back to him, and be put it in his
pocket.
Q. Which pocket?
A. j don't know.
g. Where WAS il found after the shoot.
ing?
A. 1t was found in bis pocket. some OF
the friends who shrOuded him took il.
q. Have you that letter in your possession
or under your control!
A. 1 have.
o. VIII you please produce It?
REMOVED.
At this point the prosecution asked that
the Jury be removed from the courtroom. as
also Mrs. Balm. This wss done, aud Mr.
McKeuney addressed the court in reference
L. the admission Of the letter in evidence
lie said that after coming into the case, and
after consultation aud with the consent OF
Mr.. DrewTy 1t was determined that, with
due regard to the interests Of the Common.
wealth and the prisoner, the doors should be
thrown wide open. DR.. Deyaney, ne stated,
was the bearer OF the letter the production
Of which was now asked. Or. DeyaneY said
TO Balm: "Nst, you must reason with your
friends about this" Indignantly Balm res
piled "This Is nothing to reason about. DO
you think | could do such horrible thing
a. IL charged IN this Lottery ! must see my
wife at once" Then Mrs. Balm was called,
and in her presence aud before his
friend he swere before high Heaven that he
was innocent OF TINS charge, and the wife
believed him, and she said We must go
10 see Mrs. MARKS about this st once" And
thus they went and were talking TO Mrs.
Marks about 1t when the fatal shots were
fired.
Mr.. Mckinney argued that as the defence
had objected 10 DT. Devsney aud Mr.. Lynch
saying anything about this letter, now the
defence had no night 10 bring II ia. The let.
ter, Mr.. McKenney said, was now in his
pocket and be would cbeerfully submit II 10
the inspection Of The Court. II the Common
wealth bad been permitted 10 introduce 1t,
Il would have been evidence, because the
history Of the events which led 10 the delivery
Of the letter would then have been develop
ed. II was not evidence now, and the prose
cutlou objects most Strenuolisly to its intro
duction.
AfR. HOLLAND.
Sir. Holland, for the defence, thought thai
Mr.. Mckinney must be laboTiDg under some