Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-05-12
Mr.. W. L. DAUeHTREWs COMPLAINT,
He Alleges that He Has Been Misrepre-
sented-The Correspondents Reply.
SUFFOLK, Va, May 4, 1891.

SUFFOLK, Va, May 4, 1891.
To The Editor Of Gie Dispatch:
Your correspondent at Franklin, Va,
who, it is believed, is the attorney en-
ployed by the prosecutors, uses the col
umns of the DISPATCH of Sunday, May 3D.,
with the evident purpose of iniuring and
misrepresenting me. take IL that this
method of prosecuting the case is one evil
dence at least of its absolute weakness.
refer TO the articles headed: "A Curious
Cord-Wood Case-A Man Carries Away a
Train-Load Without Paying for It."
ra, wish as f far as sod correct the i'm
make. The truth is that Pretlow sold the
wood TO Mr.. Dempsey Lassiter. Mr.. Las
sitter sold il to me ami paid him for it.
The whole proceeding IS simply an eff
fort TO blackmail me and force me TO pay
over again for wood which | have already
paid for and which was removed in the
broad open daylight nearly eight months
ago.
/ am perfectly willing patiently to await
the legal determination Of the matter be-
fore deciding as to my future course Of
action, but | am unwilling TO be con-
demned to infamy before the trial by your
paper and your correspondent without
making this mild protest at least.
Very respectfully yours,
W. l.. DAUGHTREY.
FROM THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE DISPATCH.
FRANKLIN, Va. May 8, 1891.
] thank you for an opportunity to ex-
plain my position in writing the article re-
ferred to in the above communications from
w. l.. Daughtry.
/ deny any purpose Of injuring or mis-
representing Mr.. Daughtrey. | know no.
thing of the strength or the weakness of
the caze. 1 know nothing of what the
object or dnimus was in institutine the
proceeding before the justice, but deny
that there was any effort on my part to
blackmail Mr.. Daughtrey. l merely set
forth the fact of Mr.. Daughtrey's arrest,
ments of the complainant who swore out
the warrants, and stated the disposition
made of the case by the justice. l made
no assertion nor offered any opinion as TO
the truth or falsity of the charge.
Iconceive that it is the privilege of every
newspaper and its correspondents to give
10 the public the proceedings of court of
justice and the stated ground for the
charges upon which those proceedings are
based. In many cases the charges are ut
terly without foundation and the state
ment of compliments untrue, but report
efs cannot know this, and the proceedings
are facts, and the geneyal public has as
much right to know them as the local pub
lie. Were this not true no case of however
grave importance could be noticed by the
papers until after trial and acQuittal or
conviction; and yet your columns and
those of all other papers publish those
facts every day as soon as they occur. /
can recall such publications concerning
prominent citizens or Richmond to-day
where the public knows only that the
charges are preferred, and can know no.
thing of the truth or falsity of them until
trial is had.
The article | wrote is no more unjust to
Mr.. Daughtrey than are those 20 the parties
charged. feel that tho public win fully
justify my position. / feel no luminosity
towards Mr.. Daughtrey, and if he proves
himself innocent of the charges, as he says
he will, then consideration for himself and
his family and connections will prompt me
to willingly aud gladly write TO your col.
umns setting forth the fact that he has
been fully and honorably acquitted.
Respectfully,
FRANKLIN COMMENCEMENT.