Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-04-03
BOTH MUST BE HUNG.
1ae SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO IN
TsRFEae IN TWO MURDER CASES.
r.. al. and watson to Die on the Gsiiovs-
mr.. Howard Allowed fnterest-other
Cases Decided.

Cases Decided.
Two = uses involving life and death we're
decided Yesterday in the Supreme Court OF
Apneals nd IN each instance the court De-
low was gu ,tsined.
In Curtis ,eainst the Commonwealth the
Eve iudces were unanimous in affirming
,bs action of the Circuit Court OF Norfolk
county. where the prisoner was found
or;ltv Of murd, in the first degree.
The first comp taint in this case was that
the record did net show that centre Jdclds
had been summc ned. In delivering the
on;n,on Of the cou vt Judge Lewis said that
tbis need not afiri uatiyely. appear, as It is
raasonshly 10 be 3 opposed that one had
boon summoned. Tive fact that the court
below had OF It's own volition granted
new trial did not expu uge All previous plo-
ceedings, but only such as were anterior 10
the giving OF issue. Al,
refnsal Of motion for Ct mtinuance; the at
tendance of only sixteen Jurors out OF the
vanire NJ twenty; cond netting the trial
while the prisoner was absent from the
court-roon. by reason OF what was ap,,
parently fit, but which two DOCTORS sslu
was sham: and the oyerru ling OF the mo-
ton for new trial. Each imo every one
os these noints were declared without pro-
per foundation
USPRCvoKED MURDER.
The crime of which Curtis W as convicted
,raa cold blooded and unprovolIed mrrder.
He ana several Others went 10 the store eh tne
yictiIn and called him 10 the door, saying Lhey
wanted TO purchase some quinine ior slck Isuy
When the proprietor appeared AZ t hesaS w Wi
CHM mattress saturated with OIL was tnen
thrown on the body and then nred, Dul , ,nu
bpildinR When found the remains were Teri ~ 2
burned out not sufficiently 80 70 mae .ho s ,nS
of the rnurderefs Several wounds were 10 Ino
ON the left side Of the head. In drawing up .he
Indictment IL was stated that tnese heIo ~ tnu
right side, and an assignment on erIU rs
this was declared untenaplo alohB WIN 'A'N -
above mentioned.
KILLED HIS WIVES DEFAHER.
The second murder case decided was "atso
against the Commonwealth. a.. n,u ~,
On the 26th Of December, 1885,, handail ma ~
aon FILLED Joe Robinson. Two weeks previous 10
| the shooting the two men had fight, during tho
course OF which Robinson made scandalous
| charges against Watson's wife, which ne aiier-
wards admitted were not true ana aiso ia1 LIN
Watson was n murderer and horse-thleI VINO
| had fled from North Carolina. Watson Bwore ne
would kill Robinson on sight ana on Two occa-
sions laid In wait for him. watson was GIN
nloyed AZ conservator OF the peace Tor the pro
faction of n female seminary. one night ne was
awakened from his sleep and told that Robinson,
who had several times been warned on the
PROMISES was there making disturbance.
Catching up his gun Watson at once went 70 me
Mace Indicated who're nc found Robinson, Nhoin
| no shot and killed. Watson says Robinson az
tempted to shoot him with PISTOL ms Wa
den cd by several witnesses, ali OF them Irlehns
OF the dead man. After the killing, however, pls
toll was found lying at the feet OF the oeau na'
| and another was In his pocket Inc doctot tes.l-
fled that II would have been impossible Tor the De
ceased 10 have drawn the weapon after ne was
Watson was tried by the Circuit Court OF
Grecnesvllle county and convicted o. muLoct 81 IN
the q rat degree. On March z, 1881, me ou-
preme Court granted him new trial and he was
| a second time found guilty OF the same offence.
WILL HAVE TO HANG.
Judro Lacy delivered the opinion yesterday
| Affirming tho Judgment Of the court below.
| The first assignment OF error was that the ac-
cused when sworn In his own behalf was asked il
the woman he called his wife was married 70 MIN
legally and II 80, when, where, ana ny Wnoin' ~
was held that this question was perfectly aorissi-
| bic. 49,. -.,,,.., =,
the court 10 set aside tho verdict as contrary 70
| the law and evidence. 49,. 10
| After briefly reviewing the evidence the opln-
ion showed that this could not be DONE
| The third complaint wac the nature OF the IN
strucfions TO the jury, In tho last OF winch VIC
word pencably was used Tour re srs J1Syes
| Lewis and Richardson concurred Win JuuBe
1
| Lacy. .-..,,.-,o>.s
| IRoSIcAL INSTRUCTIONS.
In dissenting from the opinion, Judge Faun'
| tleroy went considerably into the case.
| lilo did not for moment doubt that watson
| was entity OF murder, but there were some clr'
! cumstances 10 be considered. a
| n was in evidence that Watson was man OF
| good character, being employed Dy inc ProPrls-
| for OF n female school 20 keep peace on tho pre-
| misses In the middle OF the night no was sum
| moned and told that Desperate, JOG .'ooln l
Was making fuss. The use OF the Word ', peace
| nbly" four separate times In one snort lbstruc
J tion was significant, as showing too plainly Inc
ouinion Of the fudge. SIN, under tho clrcum
| stnnces, tho taking Of gun need not necessarily
| be construed as an unpeaceable actlon'
DIsLIKED TO Dissent
| Judpe Hinton regretted that there should be
/ diversity OF opinion in any case where huiIaI
| life Ia nj stake. In the instruction referred "
the Court below certainly did intimate It's opinion
| The facts did not impress him as being uhalter,
1 ably against the accused. Watson was man
such charact er that he was selected ny O lauy u
| take care of q female school. He had previously
had an alteration with Robinson, but that nae
| been two weeks prior 10 the killing. Inc WIZ
| nessee all friends Of the dead man, admtiec
that he and they had come there on SUNDAY To-
| ,he nnrnose of playing cards. Robinson made
| charges against Watsons wife which were no
| true, and admitted that he did so TO mako tn'
| husband angry. Watson was awakened at nlgn
| and told that this same man who had been tolo
| 20 keep away from the premises was there
| knowing the character OF the person WIN Whoh
he had TO deal he took his gun Win nun MN
| noasIbly for the purpose of defending himself
| He evidently did not 20 OF his own accord, 10
| acme one told llim which way Robinson was. Al
of the evidence against Watson was gwen ..
people Of the lowest character. AS soon as TN
di0iculty was over pistol was found near an
| another ON the person OF the deceased, Wnlci
the doctor said could not have been drawn alte
he was wounded. 49,, - A..
| The Cont gives an instruction which uses tn
word " peaceably7 four times In such a shor
| gnace as to suggest irony. This Indicated 10 IN
| Jury that the opinion OF the Judge was adverse
the prisoner. In his opinion the prisoner ma
not had a fair trial ard should be granted ne'
| one The accused WIS seemingly hlgh-strun
| man indignant with tine man who had traduce
| his wife. but there was nothing In the evidenc
| 10 show that he intended TO murder hoplhSon'
Entitled TO Interest.
Judge Richardson delivered the opinion in IN
| case OF Mcveigh against Howard, from the III
| cult Court OF Alexandria city.
On January 8, 1873, Mr.. McVeigh, father
the plaintiff In error, gave Mr.. John howard
| bond for $4,000 for professional services .eI
dered. A portion of the money was paid, whe
1 n dispute arose as 10 whether interest began 0
| Tho day payment was demanded or from IN
date Of the bond. The opinion OF the court wa
that as the bond was given for services aire s,
| rendered interest began from It's date. IN
general maxim was laid down that In virginia
bond or note payable on demand bears inierei
from date. -, -.
This dfllrfned the Ncruict VI tho io"ci eoui t'
Tho interest in this case amounts to Detwee
} | $4,000 and $4,000.
OTHER SUPREME COURT CASES.
Stinson against Bailey. From the Circuit Coui
. | az Warren county. Affirmed, Judge Hinton d.
, | liyerIng the opinion.
, Connecticut Fire-lnsurance Company againi
Tllley. Si,perssdeas awarded 70 judgment {
, | the Circuit Court Of Norfolk city on the 24th
J | January, 1891. r..
! Whiting agains, the town Of West Point. Cor
| tipued.
Hodges against the Seaboard and Roanok
| Railroad Company. Set Tor Aprll y, 1921. W.,
Brown against Butler. Argued by L. d. Wei
denbnrg Esq, for appellant and A. w. Pate
! son, Esq, for appellee.