The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1891-10-25

Mrs Belnotte. and the one for 81 800 held by
Mr.. Peyton. Witness stated that in both
instapces he did 30 ut the request of the
nsrties named. and that II was bis
business TO give information a. 10 the securi-
ties of notes which had passed through his
Office. He then related how be lmet Ludwig
in Washington aud brought him to Rich
| mond where he introduced him 70 the Chief
| of Police in his Office. While in Washington
his Office in this city was in charge of son of
| Mr. D. Thompson Brown, his book-keeper
| collector, clerk and porter. Both members
| of the firm were absent at the time. fact
which TO his recollection had never happened
before.
j. THOMPSON BROWN.
| Mr.. ]. Thompson Brown was next called AS
/ witness by the CommonwealtDs Attorney.
| He stated that he knew Mr. Dashiell since ne
was sixteen years old he met MN tnIougn
employ q young man in his office IN April,
| 1893. He qualified az executor OF the young
men in 1873 or 1874, or 1873. but ne coulu not
exactly remember the year. lie Kept the
| Ludwig account in his general ledger IN Inc
| Office. while the guardianship account was
kent in separate book This latter account
was settled up years ago, and since then he
| Ind not seen that book certainly not within
| five wears. and in fact he had no business TO
/ look at 1t. Nv.
Under cross-examination by Captain Wise
the witness stated that he remembered
when Dashiell and Captain WISE called on
| him TO look for the Ludwig ledger, aud that
he was willing 10 give them all the assistance
he could in finding the book which. however,
did not appear. The estate OF the father OF
the Ludwig boys consisted exclusively OF real
estate of house on First and Broad streets,
two houses on Tenth street and one house on
Fourth and Clay streets, worth IN all about
"A sfItlpIlent
of the estate when the older boy
became OF age Tho Magraw notes
were given on the two houses on Tenth
street He knew very little about the hnal
settlement for the accounts were ali kept by
Dasbiell He had some recOll, ction of the Lud-
wiz ledger. in which the fducary accounts
were kept but he WAC not positive about 1t.
He La hunted for the book. Lut could not
find Il. lie did not know that Dashlell kept
an account of the transactions IN regard to
the Ludwig notes in the back Of the Ludwig
ledger until he himself mentioned II duting
his visit At his Office after his arrest. lie as
sisted him all he could, but the book could
not be found
LEROY BROWN RECALLED.
Mr.. eroy Z. Brown. when recalled by Mr..
Smith stated that on the day Of Dashlell sarrest
he lett the CITY on business at an hours no.
tice at the advice of Judge George l.. Chris
tisn, who WAS hi counsel N civil suit. lie
went TO New York IN connection with TINS
suit and did not even have time TO tell his
family about hls leaving. Inc civil suit was
against Dsshiell.
Mr. Bernard Peyton was recalled by the
defense. and when questioned by Captain Wise
he 5 ated with great emphasis that he did not
request Mr.. Brown TO write the letter 20 Lud-
wig in regard 20 thesecurlty on the Il ,5ODnOte
lie showed the note 81 the time 70 Mr.. Leroy
=. Brown, VINO considered the signature TO
be genuine When he went 70 Dir. Browns
Office he had several notes In his hand. among
them the : 800 note. and he inquired about
the deeds of trust securing the several notes.
He did not hear Brown say that the Ludwig
note was not secured by real estate, nor ala
he hear him say that he would write about
the note and he certainly did not ask him 10
do it. and did not expect to hear from him
any more on the subject
a recess was then taken for half an hour
and the Jury was taken out for walk in the
fresh air After the recess Mrs. :. beilenoS
was called and told about the visit OF Dir.
eroy H. Brown 10 her hOuse in August last
She declared that she did not request Mr..
Brown to wlite h. Mr.. Ludwig. but that he
offered 10 do so and she made no objection
Mr. Brown never came back 10 give her any
information which he might have received
from Mr. Ludwig.
TIE INSTRUCTIONS.
The testimony Of Mr. Ludwig concluded
the evidence in the case and the Court read
his instructions to the jury, which we've a.
follows: X
Before the jury can convict in this sase
they must be satisfied beyond reasonable
doubt from the evidence
First. That the note for S1,25O was
forgery.
time he gave it TO the bank that II was
forgery; and
Third That he gave it to the bank with the
intent TO deiraud.
The Court instructs the jury that the law
presumes the defendant TO be innocent until
he is clearly and cOnclusivey found guilty
beyond all reasonable doubt and, if there is
upon the minds of the jury any reasonable
doubt Of the DEFENDANT guilt. the law makes
1t their duty TO acQuit him, that even II there
We're suspicion or probability Of his guilt.
however strong. they wOu q not be sufficient u |
convict. nor would il be sufficient If the !
greater weight or prepondcrance OF evidence
supported the Charge IN the indictment, nor /
that upon the doctrine of chances Il were /
more probable that the defendant IS guilty |
but to warrant his conviction his guilt must /
he proven so clearly and conclusively that !
there Is no reasonable theory upon which he /
can be innocent. for the policy of our law |
deems 1t better that many guilty persons
should escape rather than that one innocent /
person should be convicted and punished, |
and safer to err IN acquitting than IN punish
ing.
A reasonable doubt is that estate Of the /
mind which after a full comparison and con- |
sideratOn of all the evidence both for the /
State and defense. leaves the minds OF the /
Jury in that condition that they cannot say /
that they feel an abiding faith amounting 10
q moral certainty, from the evidence ia the /
case. that the defendant is guilty OF the charge
a. laid III the Indictment. 1t you have such
doubt. If your conviction OF the defendants
guilt. as laid in the indictment. does not
amount to q moral certainty from the evil
dence ID the case. then the Court instructs
you that you must acQuit the defendant
The Court further instructs the jury that
the defendant, W. ; Dashiell. Is a competent
witness in his own behalf, as much 70 a. any
other witness IL this cause, and the jury is
sole judge of the truth of his testimony and
the weight TO which il is entitled as well as
that or the other witnesses in the cause.
AT this point the court took O recess until
1880 y. NJ, and il was stated by Judge Witt
that in arguing the case each side would be
limited 10 three hours.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
At the beginning of the afternoon session
after the recess taken by the court for lunch
Attorney Smith commenced
bis argument for the prosecution.
lie spoke O. the duty which the Jury owed
to the State, the city and society itself TO
undertake this unpleasant business and TO
Try the case 70 their lest ability according to
the law and evidence If tie sympathy for
the defendant was not consistent with their
duty, then they were bound 70 yield it up