The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1895-07-07
Others WHO DISCREDIT Mr.. MASSEY
III. luCluS Henry LedCh, GIRn & co.'s VII,
ness From The For RCSl.
4 TELEGRHDa WaS BROUGHT TO HlJf
Yesterday Largely Given to Reading
Dispositions. Mr. Amos Dicker-
son, of Floyd County, and Col,
Elicit, of Richmond, on
the Witness Stand.

The second week of the Massey. Pilot
suit has passed aud tho interest in tue
great trini has not abnted. The at
tendance Is nhout rs large as when the
case was first called. 1t Is more than
likely that next Saturday night will
tind the suit still III progress Mr..
MaSeey, Gov. O'Furrell, Attorney Gen
eral Scott aud number Of other wit
pesses will 20 on the stnnd rs soon Ms
The testimony for the defense is oil in.
This has been II week for the do
fcnse. They have submitted hundreds
al pages OF documentary eviduuce aud
0iHdavits. The lawyers on both sides
aave fought with all of their energy
every issue. 1t is doubtful II more
carefully prepared case wns ever given
TO Jury III Norfolk court. 1t is Il
battle OF giants. Able lawyers on each
eide aud the plaiutin and defendants
under all ordinary circumstances would
be able to take care OF them selves.
The suit is commanding greRt attention
from ocenn TO ocean. The telegraph re
ports that go out from Norfolk ure as
full as those OF the first days session.
Yesterday was Il dny for the defense
an which WAS submitted some OF their
strongeat charges against MIR. Massey.
h'S "SCh tht EIullbiil, VI nv IiSSSl
through q shower of denuncintion
without finch, will have n herring.
His counsel expect III rehnttal to
chow malice III much that has been said
and TO diSnpprove or eXplaiu mnny
shings that the defense rely upon with
confidence.
OBJECTIONS ARGUED.
As soon rs the court WAS called to
order yesterday, Mr.. Thom arose and
objected 10 the evidence of Colonel
Naddy james, OF Franklin countv,
Va, SO far us it rendered to show that
MIR. Massey had offered Colonel Jamas
bribe. The jury was requested to
retire while the objections were heiug
argued. MIR. Thom thought that the
fact Of the fight between MIR. James
aud the plaintiff, MIR. Massey, brought
ont Friday by counsel, did not justify
the admittnnce OF the further testimony
that brought ont the offer OF bribe.
That having come ont in cross. .eXnmi
anton can only be allowed to show tho
anImus Of the witness nud not be
taken with reference To the character
or reputation of the plaintiff; that it
can only he allowed to show that the
witness is hostile witness.
Judge Heath conteuded that the evil
0ence WAS properly before the jury
and that 1t was brought out by the
plaintiffs counsel for the purpose OF
ehowlng the animous OF the witness 1t
was now question for the Jury, aud
the jury alone, rs 10 what weight they
might give TO that pnrt OF the testi-
mony. lie did not believe that any
part OF the evidence could be elm.
hated without injury.
MIR. Wake Insisted that Mr.. James
testimony rs to Mr. Massey's ofsr to
briue can only be admitted to show
the animus OF witness James. There
Aever was case III court in which II
was more necessary for the Judge to
circumscrIbe the testimony that should
De introduced than IN this case. The
witness was being examined solely to
establish the p!alntil's general reputa.
zion, and the evidence of specific
bribery could not be admitted to prove
thls general reputation.
Judge Neciy snid the jury ought to
be cautioned not 10 take the evidence
except as to animus.
Judge Prentis said th6t the plaintiffs
Counsel, having taken the privilege, on
cross examination, of asking certain
questions, have brought out this testi
mony.
There is no question that tho testi
mony could never have been brought
out by the defense, but having been
brought out should it now be ruled
out.
The plaintiffs counsel held that they
had not done in the examination what
the court thought they had. Judge
preniis replied, you came very near to
It.
Capt. Wise said it cannot he learned
what Mr.. Massy's character is unless
oil OF Mr.. James testimony is allowed
20 go to the jury, that ms general exam.
Inatlon 1T is admitted that the witness
could not have testified us to specific
bribery, but the plaintiffs counsel
haying asked Mr.. James as to n specific
oct of slapping Mr.. Massey, he had a
might to say why he alapped him, and
pthis having gone to the jury mnst re-
main with the jury.