The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1896-08-29
All The Evidence Ia the Wright Case In
and Argument Begins Today.
PUBLIC INTEREST IS AT WHITE cEA1.
The Crowd That VIII Attend To-day
Not Probable the Jury VIII Reach
verdict Tonight Though II
VIII Have the Cnac.


now remains for the twelve mon who
have so faithfully listened 10 the evil
dence from the jury boN-thc real ar
bitrators OF the matter--to say whether
or hot Major G. w. Wright eN-Treas-
nt"i' OF Suffolk. has been guilty Of mis-
anpropriatini, public funds. The evil
derce was all In by O'Clock this after
noon. and tho remainder of to-day's
session. which was protracted nearly
an hour longer than usual, was occu"
nicd in the discussion Of instructions.
The defence submitted ten and the pro-
secution two instructions. They were
nll taken by Judge kilby. who will pass
upon their applicability Tomorrow
morning when Court conVcncs.
Major Wright, the defendant was on
the stand nearly all day. subjected to
n rigid cross examination by Common
wealths Attorney Holland. Very lit
tic new matter was brought ont. The
witn"ss was in part n shrev Il one. and
while he made some reply to all the
questions. they were answered In
Inv sinful manner If he did not
know what he was asked he was very
terroratories lie said II was impossible
for him to give correct answer. OWING
to the remote period Mt which the trans
actions referred to were made.
When JUDGE l<iiby convened Court
Can't. Wise made n motion that ali qucs-
cross examination of Major Wright yes
tcrdav which referred to the Commits
sioner's books of 1889 30 be excluded on
the ground that those books had been
excluded by the Court and were not
in the case. Tie motion was argued at
lenrth.
TIE objection was not made at the
time because he did not know that ref
erence was made to the rejected papers.
he said hc did not wish to impugn any
ones motives. but M one knew any
better than the commemorative Attor-
ncv that the questions were about the
naucrs which had been rejected by the
Court. TIL. cross examination was not
confined TO the examination In chief
which the mereSt tyro in the profession
Gaew should be done. The experts had
hcen allowed to cor fer about the reports
while one of them was on the stand
theoretically. This had never been done
before In n criminal case. Capt. Wise
claimed that All outrage had been per-
pctrated on the defendant.
MIR. Holland replied that he rcpclcd
with Indignation the insinuation about
the OUTRAGE. He said counsel for de-
fcnse had seen him hand witness papers
and they should have objected al The
time. They were given witness 10 al
low him tn refresh IS memory. He said
everHthing had been done openly and
above board. and disclaimed that any
Injustice had been perpetratel.
Cant Wise replied that lie was here
TO DISCHARGE duty and so help him
Coo he WIS going tn do II. lie said
wrong had been done. whether by the
commemorative Attorneys fault or the
Ignorance or neglect OF tho cour sci for
the defense. Let the scales of justice
he held In and let the truth prevail,
though the heavens fail. No victory
achieved by improper means is worth
the paper on which recorded The
III
wish to deprive her citizens of liberty
unlos sthcv desire Ii. He said without
rejecting on Ills Honor too much in
DILIGENCE had already been granted. and
II continued Christmas would come
when the end was not yet
The Court ruled that the objection
was we'll founded. and that all owl
lrncc evolved from the rejected papers
was excluded.
Col Bovkin then moved to strike out
al questions and answers regarding the
examination about IT," = per cent. pen
a!tv The motion WAS argued ut length
ana ovcrruled. Exceptions were noted
y motion by Col. Boykin 10 reject
evidence brought out on cross cXami-
nation except what had been substan-
t!atcd was granted.
Mr.. Holland then continued the cross
examination Of Major Wright Witness
said he d!d not charge the per cent
ncnaltv on each lax account paid after
December LIST When asked why he said
1t might have been neglected, but he did
not do it. 4 number of objections were
made to questions and when overruicd
note OF exception always followed.
An attempt was made to have the
witness make long calculations. but the
Court ruled that such should he done
nv the attorneys or jury, as the data
VS. already in as evidence.
It was shown that the amounts re-
por;ed collected on the several funds
cunbcncv were not prnportionate TO the
rates of assessments. Witness aclnuwl-
edged that the funds may have been in
accurately Suhdividcd. but claimed that
the town received every dollar collect
ed,
When he explained about the Fan
ers' Hanli ana Water Company to Or
Elcv he did not know why other un-
assessed taxes We're not alluded to al
the time. Ee had never made formal
aDnlicatior to Council to refund any
money repaid. He did moi remember.
ever saving that he charged no COM
missions on town bonds.
lie said the books were taken TO his
residence and part of them were de-
strovcd when he returned home. Was
not especially careful with them, as
he Il ID settled with the town and CON
sidcr,d them useless. They had been
bought with his own private money
When his examination was CO hpietea
the defense announced that they would
resi-
l.. Patterson was introduced by the
prosecution. but defense objected. which
objection was sustained by the Court.
w. n. McAnge was put on by Mr.
TJAIl.