The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-09-25
SUPREME COURT CASES.
CHAS. WILLIAMS. MURDERER OF
Gro. BESs, KEFUsLD NEW IRIdL.
Same Nice Points In Criminal Evidence
Passed Upon by Judge Keith
Other Cases.

The following opinions were handed down
by the Supreme Court Of Appeals to-day:
Charles Williams vs. The Common
wealth. From the Cooperation Court OF
the city of Norfolk. Petition for writ OF
error refused. Openion 10y Keith, presi-
dent
TINS case Is before the court upon Pc
tition Of Charles Williams for writ OF
error TO the judgment OF the Corporation
Court of the city Of Norfolk, by winch
he was sentenced to be hanged for the
murder Ct George Bess. Tho petition al
Icges two errors.
First That the record fails to show
that Williams was present during the
whole Of the proceedings had before the
coirt mon the renewal Of his motion 10
set aside the verdict Of the jury and grant
him q new trial.
He'd: That this contention IA not sus-
tanned by the record, which Shows tha'
the prisoner was, on the lst day Oh Juiy'
the day Y hen the motion was rehe"eu.
"again led 10 the bar In the CUSTODY ol
the taller Of the court, ana lHeleui'0"
renewed his motion TO set aslde lne
uict of the jury Upon this m'uoh 'ilc
decision Of the court was reserved. IL
does appear, therefore, That the prisoner
va nrescnt when the only thing was
done by the court which could AFFECT MS
interest. But. further. the record assert
eI that the prisoner was led TO the bar
of the court. His presence is presumed
TO continue during that days session I'M
less the contrary is made 10 appea d.
rectlv or by necessary intcndment.
The second assignment Of error IS that
the Jury was taken to the scene Of the
alleged homicide at the request OF the
attorney for the Commonwealth. and that
while inspecting the locality the jury ask
ed Iinthicum who had testified a. a wit
ncss, to point cut where the spots OF
blood We're on the deck Of the ship.
Linthicum proceeded TO point out where
the blood had been. and explained that
it was not then visible because the deck
Ct the ship had been painted over since
the occurrence Of the alleged homicide.
The fact that II had been painted over
had not heretofore been brought out in
the testimony This communication be-
tween the witness and the jury not IN
the presence Of the Court is alleged as
ground OF error.
II further appears that the jury visited
the locality i'm charge Of the deputy SER
geant who had been sworn 10 Keep them
together and prevent them from coniinu-
nicating with any person; thar the prs
oner was present, and that ms attorneys
had been invitol to attend, but had ce-
cnned. IT appears also that the sergeant
in charge forbade the witness TO answer
the question. but the attorney for the
Commonwealth said that il was not Inn
.ls
ence OF the prisoner
Upcu the return of the party 10 me
court the attorney for the Commonwealth
informed the Court of ali that had taheh
nlace and offered the witness 10 the de-
fence for REORGANIZATION counsel l.t
tina defence. however. ln their aNlldFll'
cav that they did not understand that
any statement hal been mas 10 INC
inrv bv Iinthicum with respect 90 'he
boat having been painted since the hohH'
clse. ..,,,-
Held: There was no misconduct u9on
.r. nart of The jury OF any member OF H.
tbo+ the statement Of Lin-hicum was
nronor evidence. and that the most that
can be said OF IL IS that 10 was iri' quarry
fr+rodnced. IL was stated IN the pres
once cf the prisoner. and the Facts were
brought TO the attention Of the court.
The witness was offered for cr0ss-eAannl-
rstiou. The prisoner. therefore, had
knowledge Of all of which he now COM
plains. lie made no objection and TOOK
no exception. but waited until the jury
had rendered their verdict. The prisoner
after the verdict has iieen rendered
against him cannot for the first time
object to the Introduction or testimony.
This is true. even where the testimony is
ILLEGAL and a fortiori. IS it true where
the objection is not to the legality or
the testimony. but TO the irregularity or
its introduction. The prisoner IN ciiin-
inal case will not be allowed. any more
than a party i'm q. civil case. 10 SIT mute
I'm the presence Of the Court. with the
knowledge that some mere irreguiarlty
has taken place during the trial. ready TO
take advantage of IL in case or an adj
verse verdict. Having knowledge OF such
irrcmlarity, 10 IS his duty 10 bring IL 10
the attention Of the Court. which may
correct IT, or in some way obviate its
effects; hut neither party 10 a civil
case nor the pris ,ner I'm a criminal case
will be permitted to play fast and loose
with the Court
ESSENTIALS OF CONsi-CTS.
Virginia Hot Springs Company VS.
harrison. i-b.l ANr 'l4"HAA ''NtN va
Bath Reversed. Opinion by Keith,
President.
This is a suit praying for the specific
performance OF a contract set out IN
tha BILL which was claimed 90 have been
entered into between Harrison. the plain
tiff. and the Hot Springs Com"any, and
the CORES pOndencc which. IL Us alleged
resulted in the contract is fully set out
in tho record and opinion. but are too
lengthy 10 be here quoted.
The court here was OF opinion that fhe
negotion was never consummated by con-
tract. neither party ever having offered
terms TO which the other gave unqualified
consent. No contract is complete with
ont the mutual assent OF the parties.
and an offer to sell imposes no obligation
until it is accepted according 10 its terms.
A proposal to accept. or an acceptance
on terms varying from those offered. is a
rejection OF the offer and puts an end 10
the negotiation. Railway Company vs..
Columbia Rolling Mills 1l9 L. s. li9.
CONSTRUCTION OF DEED.
Fackler vs.. Berry and others. From the
Circuit Court Of Augusta county. Re
versed. Opinion by Keith. President
The only question determined In this
case IS upon the construction Of clause
Of the deed from Michael Fackler 10 John
b. Watts. trustee. for the benefit OF
Elizabeth Facker. The clause in dispute
is as follows: ITO John y. Watts. trustee.
to hold as the absolute property Of his
rstH. -. l.. L.. a.