The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1892-02-24


railing OF the bar. Tho prisoner looked
better to-day than he did yesterday.
His appearance indicated that he slept
we'll last night.
Tho jury seems to be above the aver
age in intelligence and education.
There was no difficulty in Obtaining it
from the yeniro summoned from Bote-
tourt county. The. jury is as follows:
Frank Woodson, T. N. PettigfeM4sS sam.
art Penn, r. H. Thresher, CT. Price,
ID. e. Layman, A. &. Breckenridge. A.
III. Crush, Geo. Painter, S. S. Garland.
Howard Spencer, Will Riply.
The 'first witness for the common
wealth, Mrs. Margaret Gilmer, was
called, and the trial begun A hush
fell over the crowd as she entered, and
all eyes were turned upon her. Sho
was elegantly dressed in black, yelled
but not so heavily as before, and
entered with q rather firm step.
She stated that her age was thirty
four years: that she has been married
to Wyndham Gilmer thirteen years.
Frank Barr, counsel for the witness,
Whispered some remark TO her, and a
lively scrap" ensued between him and
counsel for the commonwealth, the lat
ter claiming that Mr.. Barr had no right
to enter into consultation with tho
witness. This position was sustained
by the court, and the examination pro-
ceeded
The witness said that she knew Mrs.
Baker. She has been dead two wears
and six months. She was then asked il
she had ever had any conversation with
DR.. Baker regarding his wife's death.
This was objected to. The objections
of The de f. nSa tn tho nuactin1 u,aro co,
forth by Hon. L. S Blair. He claimed
that the first duty of tho prosecution
was to prove the corpus delicti; that
they, instead of doing this, were going
OIL on an excursion, and were trying to
prove the death, by violence, of Mrs.
Baker by bringing in an alleged ccnfcs.
sion of DR.. Baker to Mrs. Gilmer.
Mr.. Blair spoke on the point with
great force and earnestness, and read
from various authorities co show that in
every murder case the fact of death by
violence must be proved before any
extraneous testimony is brought in.
The court here stated that the only
question was as to whether tho con-
tession of q prisoner could TO intro.
duced 10 prove the corpus deficit. Mr..
Blair stated this was the only question
at issue. He held that no confession
could be brought in until the death,
by violence was proved; that even il
Ut. Baker had gone on the streets of
Abingdon and confessed to oyery man
he met that he had m ordered his wife
these confessions could not be brought
in until the criminal death was proved.
he quoted the IIatchett case and the
Cluvcrius case in support of his posi-
ton. MIR. Blair's speech showed that
tho defense was prepared TO contest
every inch CT the ground.
The court admitted tho question. and
the witness answered that she had had
very little conversation with the pris-
o1er in regard 10 the death of his wife;
that she asked Dr. Baker not to tell
her anything in regard TO it.
Dr. Baker" she continued, told me
that he supposed | was very much dis
appointed at his not coming Tuesday:
that his wife was complaining very much
that day."
She was then asked if d.. Baker had
told her that his wife was dead.
Tho question was objected to on the
ground that this was mere hearsay evil
dence; that Mrs. Bakers death must be
proved ny direct evidence, by witnesses
VINO were present at the time Of the
death. This position was presented
very forciblY by Hon. John A. Buch.
anan.
Mr.. Wysor, for the prosecution, in re-
ply, claimed that tho death could be
proved by circumstantial evidence; that
even the corpus deficit could be thus
proved; that many murderer had been
hanged when it was impossible to prove
the death of his victim by violence
The question was admitted on the
ground that 1t was evidence tending TO
prove the death Of the party. The wit
ness protected AS follows:
II lived about three milos from Dr..