The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1890-12-12
TO HAVE ANOTHER TRIAL
WILLIAM BROWN, CHARGED WITH
iNCENplARlSM.

Judge Fauntieroy says the ffa"k""
County Court Was In Error In its De-
r,ssou Ia This Case, and Gives HIS
Reasons.
An opinion was delivered by Judge
Fauntieroy in the Supreme Court OF APP
peals Yesterday IN the case OF william
Brown against the Commonwealth, nom
the County Court Of Franklin county
Brown was one OF the negroes charged with
setting fire 10 the Franklin warehouse IN
the town Of Rocky Mount, in October, lSS.''
when nearly the whole town was destroyed
because Hon. John 4. Massey had been al
lowed to speak in the warehouse when II
had been refused 10 Malone.
Atthe July term Of the Franklin County
Court Brown was convicted ana sentenced
10 be hanged on the 18th OF september last
A new trial was refused him by the Juuge
OF the Circuit Court Of Franklin, ana thc
case was brought before the supreme Court
I'm q writ of error. The errors assigned were
that the writ of yenire facias was not prop
erly issued. which assignment was not
taken. as the record shows that IL was reg
ularly and duly ordered by the judge OF the
County Court, aud Issued by the clerk I"
the sheriff Of Pittsylyania county, COM
manding him 10 summons twenty citilehs
of that county, and qualified in all respects
10 act as jurors In the case.
EXCLUDE EVIDENCE.
The second error assigned was the REFUSAL
~ The trial court TO exclude from the jury
The evidence Of the witness Lucy saunders,
ON the ground that II was immaieriai ana
calculated TO mislead the jury. Inc Su-
preme Court decided this evidence 10 De
legal as link in the chain OF cireumstan-
tial evidence.
the REFUSAL of the County Court 70 set aside
the verdict Of the jury on account OF ne III,
suf1iciency OF the evidence. In speaking OF
this assignment, Judge Fauntlefoy SAID
alt Ia not material 10 determine whether
this bill of exception embOdies the facts
proved upon the trial. or Is only certlncale
Of the evidence; inasmuch as the consider
alton OF the evidence Of the commonwealth,
alone, conyinces us that IL IS Wholly
insufficient 10 warr9nt the verdict OF the
Jury, which is plainly wrong. The corpus
yelicti is not proven, as IL must be beyond
a reasonable doubt, like every other iact'
material 10 establish the guilt OF the ac-
cused. The facts stated by the Common
wealtb,s witnesses do not fully and salts
factorily prove that the fire which burned
the warehouse, md from 10 was cOlnmunl-
Gated 10 other buildings IN the town, was Ol
incendiary origin, and they do not exclude
the hypothesis that the fire may have 0rlgl-
mated from accidental causes. (Starkie's
evidence, Vol. L.. page oil.
PRoMIscUoUs CROWD.
The record shows, by the witnesses for
the prosecution, that there had been held
in that warehouse that day large and pro.
miscuous crowd Of excited listeners and
spectators at public and political speaking
and the Commonwealth witness himself
speaks of his anxiety and apprehension OF
the danger OF fire from the ''cigar stubbs
or any thing else with fire on III being left
in the warehouse, though, indeed, he does
not sneak of any liability of "a contiagratlon
from ''fre-water or whisky, the twin
abomination and concomltant oil TOBACCO.
NOT SUFFICIENT.
After reviewing the evidence Of several
witnesses. the Justice says il is not suff
cient 20 establish, to the exclusion OF
reasonable doubt, that the fire was incen
diary In its origin and not accidental, anC
he adds. .'But admitting that the evidence
reasonably and sufficiently proves the cor
nus yelicti, there is not sufficient evidence
10 connect the prisoner with preparation
of the oflense, for which O.hef agents naN'
been tried, convicted and hung, and all The
evidence in this record against the plantl
In error is purely circumstantial, anC
the circumstances themselves are moi
fully and satisfactorily proved, and even
though they were fully proved, they do not
taken separately or all together prove the
guilt of the accused, TO the exclusion o.
every reasonable hypothesis consistent
with his innocence"
In reversing the decision of the lowel
court, he says; 1--WE are of opinion that the
verdict of the jury is unwarranted by The
evidence, even considering that for The
Commonwealth alone; and that the trla
court erred in 0yerruling the motion OF the
prisoner to set aside and award TO him 9
new trial. That the judgment compliance
of is erroneous and must be reversed an,
annulled and new trial grantee TO The
prisoner.