The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1896-08-18
GREAT FIGHT RENEWED
The Trial Of Major c. W. Wright Re-
sumed Ia the County Court.
A VERY LIVELY LEGAL ENCOUNTER
Which, Though Only Preliminary.
shows that the Battle VIII BE ~
Very Hard one-Reaucst 10 Bc
Allowed to See Experts Report the
Cause Of Refused.

Suffolk. Va, Aug. 17.-(SpeclaD-Th
great legal battle pending in the case,
Commonwealth of Virginia VS. Major
Claud w. Wright, was inaugurated to-
dav. and though there was only u pre-
lminary skirmish, that was sufficient
to demonstrate the intensity of the en-
ergy which will characterize the at
tornevS efforts. The counsel will pro-
test every inch of ground that will re-
dound to the interest of their respective
sides. In to-day's proceedings the de-
Tense was plainly sparring for a posi-
tion of vantage, and also for a brief
SPACE of time in which to outline their
plans by private consultation. They
got the lattor, and to-morrowS events
will determine the result of their efforts
towards the former.
When Judge Ililby had convened
Court the Jury roll was called as fol-
lows: James Britain, Francis Il. Par
kerJ Edward ID. Brinkley. Robert II.
HAYES. George w. Gardner. Richard 7.
Rogers. John Thomas Rawles, II. Frank
Rogers. Timothy a. Nann, Samuel Will
kins. Frederick Brinkley, Phillip l..
Rogers. William J. Simons, Hugh II.
Williams. John l.. Benton, William J.
Brinklev. All were present except
HAYES. in whose place George Il. At
lkins was substituted.
Judge Kilby asked the attorneys II
they were ready and Mr.. Holland. for
the Commonwealth, answered in the
o Affirmative. Capt. Wise, for the de-
Tense without stating their readiness
or unreadiness. asked to see the report
made by the experts who inspected Mai
Wrieht's accounts. Mr.. Holland re-
piled that the data was not yet public
record. never having been received by
the Council. He most positively re-
fused to comply with the request. He
said that the defense should have been
prepared from their own books: they
la inl,t tn
Right here the fireworks began.
Capt Wise said that the Council OF
Suffolk had ordered completion of its
records: public money had been used
for the employment of experts to COM
pile the data. and every citizen had n
right to inspect their work. What
right had Mr.. Holland to deny the in
Spection?
Mr. Holland made n lengthy reply, in
which he insisted that the experts work
was not vet n public record, and the
opposing counsel had no strong ground
on which to demand an examination.
He said that he had been denied the
privilege of examining the records
which were in possession OF the defense
at the first continuance.
Colonel Boykin made a strong appeal
In support of Captain Wise's propo-
sition. He said without impeaching
Hollands inherent fairness and sense of
Justice, he did not think the defense
was being fairly dealt with In a refusal
| to grant their request. This Is
strange and anomalous case, and the
experts data is of vital Importance 10
| our interests. This Is not the Common
waalth's evidence. Every citizen has
| the privilege to examine II. and our
| client. whose liberty Is perchance en-
danEered, has an inalienable right Of
| inspecting the experts compilation.
| therefore respectfully request-nay de-
mand an examination of the report.
| We are not being fairly and squagely
| dealt with if this request is denied
When perhaps our clients liberty is
| trembling"
Judge Kilby ruled that the motion
was premature. The defense might he
allowed TO see the report at the proper
| time. which had not yet arrived.
On MI. Briggs motion subpoena duces
tecum Were issued for the Council COM
mittee under whose supervision the OK
perts had conducted their examinat ton.
one OF the committee was present, and
Colonel l3oykin, after a private CONVEX
sation with him announced that they re-
fused 10 deliver the report.
Eoykln: Through an error of judg-