The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1895-07-24

VA bho Rihiutlu. nus UeGu
proved shat would justify the oontlnu-
anoe Of that abuse on Mr.. Massey? The
only thing proved in this connection
sey pronounced the publicatio on false
and announced that he would suo the
Pilot; yet subsequent publications OF
the Pilot were filled with abuse of Mr..
Massey. Theso subsequent publica.
tions were intended to further abuse
Air. Massey aud increase the papers
circulation. If they sneer at Mr.. Mas
sey for seeking vindicntlon in money
rather thsn in criminal suit, what
must be their love of money when they
would rather go to the penitentlary
and wear its stripes than pay little
of their money for the wrong doing.
MIR. 1hom read number of the
''subseqnent" extracts from the Pilot,
and commented on them. The last was
that in which il was said that Mr.. Mas
acy wonld have sued } esus Christ under
certain circumstances. That utterance
came. said Mr.. Thom. from q minister
of the gospel. The peace aud good
will that Christ came to preach could
have had 20 place in the heart of the
man who penned that sentence.
This old man has been charged with
AN INFAMOUS CRIME
and followed relentlessly for months.
The Court has told YOU as to vindictive
or punitive damages, that if the pur-
pose III the publication was a sensation
aud to increase the papers circulation,
then that was malice aud subject to
punitive or vindictive damages.
What are the facts? They published
n N t1n,tSun1 edition AL,
the thought that it would be read by
100, 000 people. Isn't there enough
surrounding this publication TO con
vince you that they intended 1t Us u
sensation aud to increase the papcr's $
circulation? You must take into con
sderation that the article emana,ed
from disappointed aspitant for the
book patronage III Virginia. You cnn
not fail to see that it was In the inter
est of OF these disappointed Publishers.
MIR. Byrd and AIr. Small are both law
ycrs, and knew that certain things that
they bad heard could not be introduced
as evidence to justify them i'll the pub.
llcation.
What have they proved? Only that
Mr.. and Mrs. Massey went to CANADA
and that MIR. Womack went with them
That, to my mind, is evidence that Mir
Massey had not been bribed rather
than that he had been. The New York
World had charged that Mr.. Massey
had beeni bribed, and if that charge
had been true, would Mr.. Massey have
been travelling with the man who wss
snid to have brihed him? His being
with Mr.. Womack on that occasion is
an evidence OF AIR. Massey's conscious
ness of innocence. We are taunted
about not putting MIR. Womsck on the
stand. We had hoped to do thst very
thing he was here for that purpose
but when we saw the purpose of tue
defense to drag in every extraneous
issue to make an impression on some
one or more of the jury, We were then
determined that this jury should not
try the question of MIR. Womack' q
bribery in Washington. We had been
put to great expense in getting wit
nesses In the James (extraneousI mat.
ter and we were not willing that these
eXtraneous issues should be allowed to
come between the Jury and the one
supreme Issue in the case.
cRuMBLED UNDER THEIR TOUCH.
The only evidence that the defense
claimed to have that Mir. Womack paid
the Canada expenses" crumbled un.
der their touch when the defense put
Mrs. johnson on the stand,
The DeLea evidence that Mr.. Mas
sey came down the bank steps with
MIR. Womack, the former having a roll
of money III his hand, is better evi
dence that Womack and Massey
robbed the bank, for no man would
have thus been seen with the man who
corrupted him. If the So, 900 deposited
by MIR. Massey IN 1890 was the money
Air. Womack lad given him ns bribe,
why did lie bring 1t out OF the bank
and not deposit 1T there and then? As
to tho boom investments, he (Thom)
would not be surprised if there are
come on the jury and ut the bar of
Norfolk who we're saving up money at
that time for Investment; that he
lIhom has (bo3m) chicken out at
Salem. In regard to the purchase of
the Charlottesville house i'll 1894, he
Ihom) would like to state that III 1892
MIR. Massey had OF new monev mot
traceablo to other sources) Sl,925; in
IN 1893, 1880, aud in 1881, Sl,92j,
We have, said Mr.. Thom, the evi
denco of Mrs. Massey's brother that
she was given 50. 400 by her brothers
III Alabama about that time (of the pur
chase of the Charlottesville honse, }
Referring to McCreary's tax list not
standing the test of Capt. Wise's cross
examination as to correctness.
Mr. Thorn alluded to the fact that it
Is nothing unusual for DnopIa IN f., 10