Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-12-20

o.. .,, S-r'as testimony. Even if the
~ fr the accused unadvisedly
... .~ objection 10 proof OF the spe-
d. ...r-.s i'm the Parsons letter. yet
o. .r! shows that they persistcntly
..5 o this evidence and never
-s rNr objection. contending that
.r..f.r with the section-master at
:--.I Was a different charge from
81. o-t tr. station-agent at Saltpetre
-- -s ALLEGED IN the Parsons letter. But
.-....i mat it is admissible 20 prove mo-
wlr rr1ve motive? The homicide
a., clearly proved, and there was no
..-..-. o. vino was the slayer.
FevruICIAL TO THE ACCUSED.
-.. .-..,- ~ Parsons and the reply OF
c,-.~sr were properly admitted to show
-. ...a 1f ceiling Of Goodman towards
-.-s. d.. !, was not proper to prove
o.. nth ~ tas charges in ParsonS's let
d. rrrfs "a false issue, was calculated
---t.s. the Jury, and was highly pre-
| f.t DID the accused. a person read
... large Iart of the evidence ana es-
urt of the cross-eXaminatioh
l~s- might fairly infer that they
o.. ,-- him for improper advances
r-s >a,.ss. rather than for the muir
-- ... 1.. Parsons.
-t- Their" Is error in the tourtn pli
g .,..,t1n in not admitting evidence
..s ,..-t-u.nv after 1t had been errone-
..,r admitted. ,.
-.. There Is error in the fifth DID
se..rr.n in not admitting evidence
r.. fftt II conductors carrying hre-
t--s v+.r Du duty. This was proper evil
s-.a o. B., 10 the jury, TO explain now
- .-..r ma. 10 be armed on the morn
-f Oil. ar,av. and also to be weighed
E-e .rv u a seeming conflict or eVl-
t- .- o whether he went 10 MS
r... ,r the letter or for his pistol.
r-- " = was "a violation Of law Tor MIN
. r-r t- pistol while of OF his train
rf .- ...r- to and in returning from MS
l.--.. which IL Il narrow and technlca'
rr q t.e statute. yet II was admsslple
g re ,..-ous given above.
r.t If .e unnecessary 10 pass on the
-sr4 I,,ed IN the sixth bill OF eA-
t-,r. e,cluling Haden Penn's testi-
r the evidence 1t was intended
:; r.t les been excluded.
sr. T-.re is error in the seventh
= option:
re, l refusing 10 give the fourth
-r--t asked FOR by the defendant
.tt It....rded "a clear and correct
s~l.... Z the law applicable TO one
g.. tt- evidence. and should have
D. gwen.
NAIICE-PASSION.
T. is objected that 1t is not warranted
b ,ie evidence and that the evidence
-s -.t show that Goodman was In
tIort " passion, but his evidence
@ o. show that ne was greatly ex-
e'.- t-l 10 Is FOR the jury TO deter
@ t,m the evidence whether IL
t at 81 "a transport OF passion or
b. Dr. s also objected that IL excludes
N- ..a of malice. but that is proper.
.r ctsot be malice where there is
i... slI vice versa. Ii Is also OBJ
tst 70 should not have been given
the accused was relying on self
-H0 blt ii Is allowable 10 rely upon
t .rfrr.ss. The Court should not
i'. given thc substitute for this instruc-
,a %ot only was the fourth instruc-
.- iialer. but the substitute was OBJ
i's i1 serious objection, in contain
-- o.. IDEAS of malice and passion, which
'--t ol-eElsi
The Court erred in not giving
u. i1. sixth. and seventh instructions.
q 81 pounded by the defendant. They
.a.t5 clear and correct propositions
% ae. applicable TO the care. IL was
'.f 'n make the addendum 10 each OF
la,ilctons, and even II the
'iam embraced correct propo-
VI law, IL should have
- i~ autel rs separate instruction,
a. r't lacked on 10 an instruction which
80 proper. This Is proper practice.
no ERROR.
-'ifi There Is no error In the hrst,
i, third. fourth, fifth. sixth, ana
l.'et'h Instructions given at the In
h-1. W the Commonwealth. They en-