The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1891-10-24
THE DASHIELL TRIAL.
The Accused Testified in HIS
Own Behalf.
HE MADE CLEAR MANY POINTS,
The Testimony Of a Number Of Expert Mil
nesSss Vas Heard
Bit NONE SAID The NOTE Vas FORGED.
III. comnonweaith's Case Was Rested and
r,.,nipation for the Defense Was Com
meneed- Ruling OF the Court in
Allowing Collateral
Evidence.
HE MADE CLEAR MANY POINTS,
BIT NONE SAID The NOTE WAS FORGED


jnr AZ tue suggestion Of the Court the jury
was taken out of the courtroom While coun-
So. argued the question at issue. Ihe court
explained that counse, nigh, a.uie - some
evidence which would serve % confuse the
jury If they should happen TO hear IL.
Commonwealth Attorney Smith stated how
the legal question Lad been raised. " hon
Mr. Samuel d. Wallace, cashier OF the Cit
izens' Bank was IN tho stand on the previous
eyeripo he had asked him the question
whether the prisoner bad negotiated 81 ms
bs-k 81 note FOR 3 500 issued u August. i~'U.
Incl prrnortel o. be signed by D. j. Lud-
MIG Ihis note had not been paid until
August l,al. after Mr. Dasmen haa oee n
arrested C.uusc. for the defense had sed
o. eetons against tbs admission OF that
evidence for two reasons. because u was
not re evant bad nothing io oo with the case
at issue and wa. apt 90 confuse the jury ana
fec.nl.y. that even u tho evidence was ale
r..sslole. 10 was GOO remote lr point OF Tune
and that nothing could bee proven os al
..t.ral evidence. except when the intention
WI. Or show q certain knowledge ana intent
Op tao part of the arc sed.
sYsrr,Ar C. FRAUD.
itvas the purpose oi the Commonwea.th1 to
s..u that very soon after 5ir. LuuW : Aad
ett.e city there Dad been commenced a sys-
t.u.f frmd in Mr. Ludwes name oy AiT.
Ia.f.el who had negotiated tne GLOWING
r.t.-t .rrlortiug % be signed by d. j. Lud-
W. aud winch they would attempt ,o prove
,-f ,,.uld rrlvs TO- be forgcres. one note
for 90 900 ln August. 1890. TWO notes loI {. w
each Ed October. $500 one Mole ior Si'oVO ID
December. IsO TWO notes Tor 973' each ln
Jsnunry l.al. one uoto for 500 ana one lot
-I9DI I'm February. 1891. one note for 800
and tvg. notes for $3.50 each in ApTl. 1871;
one note tor eI.0U lu Jult. l..l- making I'D
al an amount of over $4,000.
1lr. smith cited aooata dozen authorities
from court dsc.Rons ot the various States
o. support fine pr0I o-itiun for "hich Le COM
tended He stated that he thought u very
evident from the manner ana con0uct 81
counsel for the oo.else That they intended
+a -h. r that tle complainant received the
r-o.eel5 NJ the note Tie ey delce which he
wished o. introduce was admissible ON an
d. ar Ground u was intended % rebut the
av.f.,e. o. the De- cuse. Lo was willing To
take their own limits a5 90 time ana SIMPLY
a-saI tae Court 20 le allowed 90 bring ln ass
evidence file acts committed 10y the ac-
ca.-I 3une the rme rom August 1880 10
August 1888 prove the evidence OF fraud.
rar ARGUMENT roH DErENsr.
Nr Carter on behalf Of the defense began
lis argument ly stating that the collat raj
et..ou.e should cover acts committed az
.raiout tiermo "a. the one on wllch the
case WIS based. he took the ground that %
6-nn ton s. oud Doe made between the
rrerirc II counterfeit bank notes
and private notes u man uttered
counterfeit bank note there Ger
tairiv WAS u0 proof of bis guilt as
tot.emakIng 0f tleu O. but If be W IS caught
with apoc.ct t.l OF such notes at tie time.
tl tl-r. wl- some evidence Oi ms quit ia !
Ie-a.l ~ ,. ';+iS a',I;eJ 80
t .,1 ~ ,[+ss .Lor - in
, ..,..-''-r..5.,s eel l,, ,b. |
' H. -,
.'- '.'..' '.' ~ ..oH'' ~. g..
- '-' - ~ '- l,, o,',
''1 "-'.''9,'.- va '' -
10 az,
s.,,, 49,. 1,,9,+o5 t1en .Lo
- -, - bo
'A'' "Y-o.e "9 ".''r ua'1 =" .ta,
e.,iFeV --'' .. ".' ''-,' ~ p io -
...-.,.l'S e--,,.I 10 ~ ar- fr
ga -.
''"' ''-''''' '-' '.'1'eN IA "'''i'A'
W..
I'D, "i.''.- VIZ '-'- .' rs. .No 1850 $500 ~
"'. 3" """ grow" "'e 'i S"il1"9. g." ''
'-' "-~s". " ~ 1
-''-',', Nu..D IeI'I4eD u nam D.es an"
'-D-'. t"lols '"''.el man ~ plI'"se- Ia,
d" N-'- " ~ "l.ol.lE H.. q a.
~ ~ 49,, ,-r'--.,t+.5; Il 80
.1 .-s'(l.t,I
~" '""i - w" u. '"0 az 20 a." i.D."'o,s
sac o''.''--' "".''u H'' e 9I"'S - -. CO.
-. oe D4e7ui-e4 I"IIeI ,H"I re uiN Ai""
.D' '." De counter elt "uen 10 al1eHIp'
pass L. d ne Aad aol tHe same tnlns auou1
use * W mouta before tat time, then TIE
qf.t... ,,....4 ,,..t,..t - s.st.,,, .,rd would
1rlg home o. him wat had been lacking
te.Ie. evidence Of "a guilty knowledge
. ,.......,,,,
Dg ue-iloI WI GU MF "Aiace Huu oeeH
'u' o.Fe l"' "cl4on7 "I4O- "oio "''O-
.t.- NAtIeAI iIo.i eacn theF. 10Y ne "Hs /
" ''-sI Ae Atu DeoN -Hh mig 'AA' /
'' e''t az tNe same 'llI" ne W'9 - /
"-''Atl ,Ae hole was I9Iseu OF T.. |
.''-'I 'I DOR hF. basniei mao any Au""4- |
N. i"'7 ."i-fi5 tohd .hot DE ven Any /
'..'- NF iAe possession OF Auhureu NOTES /
W. Orc I'll. lf- a.
' common" wealth. attorney nag seen IN, az /
pug epeiale lhu'cl.AeAt on tne SI.zyO /
'' ~" ne ". ~, 'e1 20 10 Dl'.s al W /
.'."on'0. lnlS Fi.OOV n"'o rl.sn' /
Wl t Al o.,-'-@' "G 5,''. %
II. ,' ' CIV IL '.oi- ~ m ~ '',,a
l...- . 80 T Up ~ - /
,'.-~ 'l'; ~ /
1855 -o- o' 'u VI /
s.. '' "o"-~
-~" -'0 ~ i'uII {
r. 'I|o.." ",- W ~ """ s'o''"i /
." us oi''D'ou. .L0 e' ."ony re snoulu
.s1 ~ 'Ie 49, az Ss"o. AAe'5 Was
-'",o ~ i-i, e''o a. en- 10y
f.... o.' .e',,' q. g , i..on.o,
, s' YOU " s','i' ,..o 'S,1o o' .,,e 40
l-tt......s r'1-13 have - be tried IN ana