The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-07-07
THR CHARGE OR CONSPIRACY
Between Massey and Nom'ck Not Yet
ProTtn, Says Tho Court.
HoRB CHARACTER TESTIMONY.
Several witnesses Think Mr.. massey's
General Reputation IS Bad An At
tempt to Show Up wonack In
Had LightTbc Tes-
timony in Full.

crowd Of spectators IN So"'e o. 49, W
ing OF the proceedings this morning was
very nearly as large as on any previous
dav of the trial. This. doubtless. was
dus IN the sensational evidence introduced
yesterday by the defence. ar r. r, byra
was the FIRST attorney TO appear put 'ne
other legal gentlemen were on mana a'
tha horr for converting. After the forHd'
onen,nr of court II was discovered that
,,ro~ reaaue WAS not present. and pro-
ceed,ngs we're delayed for some minutes
~, this account. Mr.. Massey arrived ai'er
cour. had convened ..z,,,,,,,,
Mr.. Thorn argued as to the ao'n'ss'1 y,a,'
90 that mart O! the testimony OF NON
raSav lanes given yesterday, which re-
lated 10 the specific matter OF inc of'De
claimed 10 have been offered 10 him ny
INC nlaintiff in 1889. Mr.. Thorn thoush1
,na, tho fact of the fight between MI
lanes and the plaintiff. brought our s's
terday by counsel did not JUSTIFY the au.
rolttance OF the further testimony tna'
brought out the fact of the Drloe' cnu,i
the law that part OF The testimony snouiD
be ruled out now. .,
was now properly before the jury, ana
that a was brought out by paihtiil
counsel for the purpose OF showing the
whole facts connected with the matter oi
animus On the part of the witness' anu
ne argued tha- this testimony shouid hos
now be confined solely 20 the matter OF
animus. The testimony had been properly
introduced ana IL was now a question lot
the fury and the jury alone as 10 "nas
weight they would give To the other part
OF the testimony. Being properly inl.o-
a
ed by his Honor.
Mr. Wake said that there never was a
case in a court in which il was more ne
ccssary for the judge TO circumscrioe the
testimony that should be introduced IMAM
this case. The witness was undergoing
cross-examiration solely for the purpose
of establishing the plaintiffs general rep
utation. and the evidence of specihc brlD-
cry could not under the Law, be admit
ted to prove this general reputation.
DECISION nKsxKy1 IL
Judge Prentiss-But ii can be brought
out by the plaintiff himself
Mr.. Wake admitted this, bu; argued
that it should be confined simply TO It's
bearing upon the question OF animus, that
being the matter about which the witness
was being examined
Judge prentiss-rhere is no question
but that the testimony in controversy
could never have been brought IN by the
defence but the question is, having been
brought in by the plaintiff, should IT now
be ruled out?
Mr.. Nicely stated that they did not ex-
pect TO have IL ruled out. bat thought its
bearing upon the case should be circum-
scribed by the judge; that IL should only
be allowed to bear upon the question OF
nnlmus lie admitted that counsel for
II. t..ff ks.I tlAl M "a M
OF bribery would come out when the ques-
ton was put 10 the witness about the
slapping OF Mr.. Massey.
air. Wise argued the point at some
length, contendlng that the witness was
being examined as to the character of Mr..
Massey and that as his whole testimony
bore upon the question OF character. the
whole OF IT should be admitted.
Mr.. Heath, Jr., cited several authorities
10 support the position OF the defence.
The matter was further debated by Mr.
Thorn and Judge Heath.
Judge prenuss concluded to hold the
question unQer consideration untii Mon
Jay. when ne Will rule upon the point.
me jurors were exciuoed from the
courtroom during this argument
HEARING OF wITSEssLs.
Hon. Tazewell Elicit was called. but
did not answer.
Mir. parr Was examined by captain
Nlse. he SAID ne resided IN Stuart,
I,atrick county; was member OF the
Legislature In lsS1-o2, but was now man
contractor lie had, known Mr.. MASSEY
Tor tea years.
HAS Jonn T.. Massey ever offered you
a bride. Mr.. Parry'
Counsel for plaintiff objected. and the
Court ruled the question out.
Mar. Parr testified that plaintiffs general
reputation was bad. and in answer to the
question whether he would believe MIN
on oath. said
Not II he was much Interested
Rev. Amos Dickinson was then called
and said ne had known plaintin for
many years, and had served three terms
I'm the Legislature. He was asked II
MIR. Massey had ever offered him a bride
but the question was ruled out on an
objection.
captain Wise asked the Court to read
from the Congressional Record para
graph. containing the testimony OF Mr.
Parr and Rev. Dickinson. in the contest
ed election case between Mr.. Massey anc
Captain Wise. Judge Prentiss ruled the
matter out, and Captain Wise again ex-
cepted.
Rev Dickinson testified that plaintiff:
reputation was bad, and that when he wa
interested, he dickinson would not be
believe him on oath
Plaintiffs counsel did not cross-examins
any OF these witnesses.
DISPOSITIONS READ.
The deposition of a. W. Campbell wal
read 10 the effect that Mr. Massey.
reputation was bad.
Charles f. Nelson's deposition states
the same thing, and in addition that h
was "a sharp and INSCRIPTIONS rascal.
and that ne had heard him so accused
and that his after dealings with hin
tNelscn) both politically and otherwise
had verified these statements. Witness
further deposed that he was a Demccrs
and had always voted the straight ticket
ard was Al. vx-meplber of the Legislt
ture.
The deposition of W. r. Alexandc
gave the general reputation OF Mr.. Mas
sey for twelve or fourteen years as bad
Alexander said he had had a good chanc'
TO l. arm plaintiffs reputation. and h
regarded him as a hypocrte. who en-
joyed immunity from paying his pas
debts by embracing technicaitics of III
Law
This deposition dealt In harsh an'
scathlrg terms and dealt with plaintiff
character from religious. political, ant
social standpoint. and was regarded a
The most damaging testimony the de
fence has VET offered.
Sam. j. Seyrncdr at one time Common
wealth's Attorney for Jefferson county
had heard MIR Maesey's reputation dis