Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-03-14

gument on one ground OF the motion was
( deemed unnecessary, adjourned the court.
! trusting that reflection over night, when
words had been carefully weighed and so
borIy considered. might restore proper
| feeling. II Is a matter OF regret that who
ever was engaged In the alteration did
not walt sufficient time TO allow sober
| thought and judgment TO control their
action. which. / think. II they had waited
| tin this morning, would have been differ
ent.
THE CARRYING OF ARMS.
There Is another matter | wish TO
I sfeak Of" Judge Bradley went on. The
court has received Information that some
, OF the parties. representing the defendant,
( have come into the courtroom armed.
/ Whether that is true or not / do nos
know. We have very stringent law con-
cernIng the offence OF carrying concealed
weapons Not as stringent IN It's pehsity
| as 1 think IL ought TO be. but sufficiently
| 50 to be adequate In preventing this
! offence to a very large extent. IL ought
| not TO be necessary to remind those con-
! cerned In the administration OF justice,
{ those " no are officers OF the court, that
to bring deadly weapons into court Is
grievous offence that cannot be tolerated.
an offence subject not only TO the condem-
nations and penalties of this court, but
subject likewise 10 prosecution III the fV-
/ lice Court Of the District.
This is a law-apiding community. we
! have no occasion here to use deadly wea-
| pOns or TO carry them about the person
| The police force is adequate 10 the protec-
/ tion of any citizen. Inasmuch as there Is
/ no occasion TO carry weapons, such con-
( duct Is utterly indefensible and entirely
/ and utterly reprehensible. simply desire
! 70 say that II the Court has any mtorma-
/ ton at any time adequate to prosecute an
/ offence OF this kind the Court will deem 1t
! his duty, whoever the party may be, TO
see that the party ia prosecuted to the
| fullest extent j make no accusation. 1
/ simply make this statement on represen-
/ tations made to me. They may be mis-
| taken
ALL ENTER DENIALS.
Mr.. Butterworth, rising as soon as the
Hourt stopped speaking, SAID quietly thdt
so far as he was concerned he never car
/ rIed a weapon in his life He believed as
| this statement OF the Court concerned the
counsel for the defendant that 1t was
only fair TO hear their disclaimers. lie
| would not believe that any one OF the
| counsel had been guilty of carrying
weapon in court.
Mr. shelby at once stood up ana Salu
| that he had never been in the habit or
| carving a weapon; that he had not car
ried one. and certainly he would never
have entered this presence with weapon
Mr.. McKenny made similar state-
ment. 49,
Mr.. Stoll said: II never came INTO the
nresence OF this court or any other court
| with a weapon ,-,
~ am the only one left" said Mr. Phil
| T-hompson. "and | wish TO say that
| have NOT carried a weapon into court.
"I am very glad" said Judge Bradlsy
/ "to hear you so express yourseH' INC
,ntimation that came to me from nehy
| sources was such that | felt IL NY uu'E
TO take some notice OF Il.
Mr.. Carlisle said he woIld IKE 10 NV
the Court state IN justice Ia piH'"l"
counsel whether any represent ~ ~
| the character referred 10 ha' 'V''' ""NN
| 10 the Court by hem. l.,
| .,Ncono Uhatever: neither directly OF III
directIy'' said Judge Bradley.
rbls ended the incident. and the court
r-oceeded with the regular business oi
! the trial.
PROPOSITIONS SUPPRESSED.
Judge Bradley went on TO speak OF the
| natter of the admission OF the hehluchy
! denositlons offered by plaintiff, Whlch was
| the subject OF the argument !esteiuaS
/ afternoon The Judge decided lilal he
depositions might not be admitted az
| evidence in the case on the ground tha'
/ they were not In the handwriting Oh 'ne
| commissioner or of the witness maze IN
che nresence of the commissioner In 1859.
| when the statute was drawn, SAID Juds',
! BRADLEY, the typewriter was not dreanleu
| ~ and no provision was made for dep9si-
| tions unless they were reduced to wfitlhS
bv the commissioner or In ms presence
The statute, however. Is operative as
II is. and must be lived up to strictly.
He would consequently sustain the mo-
tion Of the defence to suppress the deposit
tions .,-..
air. Carlisle rose TO enter an exception
to the ruling OF the Court. He then
stated that he desired to read the deposit
tion OF Mrs. Mary S. Logan, taken In
| Cincinnati. but that he would wait 10
| haar IL there We're any objection rom
| the defence.
Mr. Butterworth and Mr.. Stoll explained
| TO the Court the circumstances under
which the deposition was taken. Accord
| ing to their story the deposition was
| taken stenographically. and aiterward re-
| duced to typewriting. IL was aereeu pe-
| tween counsel that both sides should nave
a chance TO consider the deposition before
| submitting II to the Court He asked
| that defence be given brief time TO look
| over the deposition, TO see If 1t had Deeh
| properly reduced to writing.
MRS. LOGAN.
Mr. Carlisle stated that he was In Cin-
cinnati when the deposition was TAKEN
hut that ne did not conduct the examina-
zion This was done by the local cOun-
| col Mr. Guy Mallon He denied that any
agreement had been entered into, ana ne
also recited the circumstances uhuer
which the deposition was taken.
Mrs Logan. Mr.. Carlisle stated, was
| nhvsician before her marriage 10 MI
| Thomas Logan. and was calfad upon 10
proye the identity of the plalhtll as an
| inmate Of Norwood Founding Hospitai'
| Nrs. Logan was in bad heaith "heh t"e
| donosition was taken. and was utterly eA-
ho,,stod nv the consequent strain. She
vas cross-examined at great length, ana
much of the cross-examination was OF
sort that II IL had been delivered before
! tbis court. would have been ruled out
bv the court OF its own motion as III
Tbere was a good deal OF difference be-
tween counsel as to the circumstances Oh
the deposition. and Mr.. Stoll fonnd II. ne
cessary TO read from the record OF 'he
hearing in Cincinnati 10 prove the pom. ne
vas irving to make-namely' that the
a ae,raement between counsel covered the
donositjon of Mrs. Logan as well as Drs'
Buchanan and Perry
According TO Mr.. Carlisle. the record OF
the examination in chief covered some
thing less than thirty pages or type
writing. while the record OF the cross
examination went over 100 pages. Mrs.
Logan at the time characterized the
Efforts of counsel for the defense as
persecution. MIR. Stoll this morning read
a number OF passages from the record OF
the hearing when Mrs. Logan was ex-
am,ned to give the Court complete IDEA
of whatever agreements counsel had en-
tered into.
A DRY DISCUSSION.
The statements of counsel and the read
ing Of the records occupied considerable
, length OF time, much TO the disappoint-
ment of the audience. who were anxious
Tor something far more interesting than
This rather long winded and technical dis-
cussIon of a legal question. What they
wanted was the contents OF Mrs. Logans
Senosition. not a long dissertation or her
physical condition when the deposition was
iaken The defence claimed that the depo-
sltIon was incomplete. as they had not
heen given a full and sufficient opportunity
70 cross-examine the witness. VINO had
been taken i'll before her testimony was
concluded. -. a.
MIR. Stoll asked for few moments 10
- .t,,,atiop with his client and