Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1896-04-25

Ier met in your hfe," said Captain r
Use. Il
In regard TO whether Mary Aoerna- 7
~ had shrOuded the body of Mrs !
ollard, Mr.. Pollard said that he did {
OF know she had He WAS under the ,
Impression that Mr. George Duty had
repaired and shrOuded the body
"Were the women arrested the
light of the robbery, MIR. POllardf'
.sked Captain Wise.
Il don't know, sir"
don't you know that the officers
went to their houses that night. un-
locked every chest ard trunk they
had, dug up their hearths. aud found /
nothing2"
Il don't know, sir. h"
Captain Wise made Mr.. Pollard de-
scribe the arrest and release OF the I
women, crOss-examined him at length
on every particular.
Captain Wise-"Did you put up an
advertisement on your gate after the
murder. Mr.. Pollard2'
A. Eyes, sir; did
"What was it?''
A. Il put up an advertisement on
my gate Offering 20 cents on the dollar
for the perpetrators of the crime, and
the recovery of the money"
Ibid not some one come to you and
ask for 80 per cent, FOR the recovery OF
the money!
A. Il never heard anything about
so per cent"
"well, did not some one say 20 per
cent was not enough, and want
more2'
A. "a gentleman did ask me if 1
would not give half.
Q. "And you said you would not
give over 20 per cent?"
Captain Wise was going TO question
Mr.. Pollard further along this line,
but MIR Southall objected, and the
hour of having arrived, court ad-
journed.
THE DISAGREEMENT.
Captain Wise examined him search
! ingly, but he adhered pretty closely &C
the statement made by him on the
stand during the trial OF Solomon Mar
able. The only new points which have
been brought out are his disagreement
with William q. Thompson; the faci
that there was bad blood between hin
and Dump" Thompson on account O
his warranting him for debt OF sax
for land rent. and the further fact tina
$50, which was in trunk at the foot o
bis bed, was untouched on the day o
the murder and robbery.
The most interesting witness tina
has yet been placed upon the stand
Mr.. II. O. Gregory, of Fort Mitchell
, Lunenburg county, who was examined
and cross examined at length to-day
, CAPTAIN Wise aud Judge FlournO
/ Il. L. . hr,l.
) his answers were promptly given. ii
testified about everything from tn
day of the murder TO the present time
He told, under cross-examinaiion, al
= about his visit to the Richmond ia
= and his interview with the two won
Z en- about his telegram to Captain Gun
ningham, and the plan which he pre-
posed to save the necks of the womeI
l In Mr. Gregory's examination Capital
Wise dwelt at length. on the point thG
. when Mr.. Gregory came to Richmon
he went alone to see the prisoners an
. never called on Captain Iuuningha 3
although he had communicated wit
s him prior TO his trip.
Much of the examination to whic
the witness was subjected was TO prov
7 his interest in the case, and stress W,
u LAID upon the fact that he had gone I
!. Mr. Pollard and advised him TO off
( half of the money stolen for its reco'
I cry and the discovery OF the murde
> ers.
!, So fer the ease of Mary Ahernst
!, has not been damaged by the testim'
( ny of the witnesses for the Common
=. wealth, and if the defence have mac
) no gains they are holding their own.
When court opened Mr.. Pollard W,
] -to 4 ~, 80,
Wise resumed his cross-examinatiO
r SEVERE ON MR.. POLLARD.
e when we closed last evening, NJ
L Pollard" said Captain Wise, Il WI
d asking you about an advertisemeI
n which you had put upon your froI
n gate ?"
= Judge Watkins: eve object to tn
|, line of questioning"
II Captain Wise: You had better wa
e until put question
n Judge Watkins: Every well, sir -
e Captain Wise then reminded Mr. =
j. lard that he had testified that son
IS man had asked him, after he had pl
l. up the advertisement Offering 20 %
IN cent for the recovery of the money al
the apprehension of the criminal
l. whether he would not give 50-per ce
l. or half. He then asked him:
in Ibid the person who wanted YOU
lie raise the reward leave at once?'
a The Commonwealth objected to Il
to question. Judge Watkins stating tn
id so far as they could see, it had no rel
he vancy whatever to the case.
~ In reply, Captain Wise contend
IN that the question was relevant, sin
r the person who had made the maui
le might be an important and indispe
of sable witness in the case. BY prever
e. ing the defence from questioning \
ne Pollard along this line, Captain Wi
Id contended they were cut of from il
n. portant facts. Captain Wise argu
the question at length, and in an il
en- FASHIONED and animated manner. brir
pit ing strong argument to prove that I
tn defence had the right to question I
in witness in the manner objected to
ne the commonwealth.
r 1--WE are here, your Honor" he sa
after the whole truth, and we want
ny all "
OBJECTS TO THE NAME.
y Captain Wise was followed by Jud
'h FlournOy, who said that. if the Co
~ mOnwealth should allow the witness
~ tell ali about this transaction, and tn
object to the name of the man bel
given, it mnst be in the mind of {
t. court that the Commonwealth had
9, motive for cOncealing the name of Il
a' man from the jury.
II eve want that mans name" 81
Judge Flournoy because we want
IN search that mans conduct Did it G
II er occur to your Honor that that m
81 might have known where that mon
- was? We want to know who that m
IN was that was so much interested in {
es matter that he had left his home, go
- to Mr. Pollard, and endeavored to 8
" him to raise his bid from 20 to 80 :
e' cent"
- Judge Watkins again spoke, urgi
&c his objection TO the admission of Il
&c line of questioning, upon the ground
- irrelevancy and indefiniteness.
= ie claimed that the defence had no rig
n n to ask a witness an indefinite questiC
. He also charged that the defence we