The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1897-05-14
THE: COLEMAN THLAn..
The Court Refuses 10 Grant a <,,,nu.c
of Ernirc

IN the D"lcman trial in the Corpora
ton Court yesterday witnesses wore ~
amin"d as to whether Il change of
venue should be granted
MI W. Y. II. Williams was the first
witness put upon the stand and stated
that in his opinion the people OF Ports
mouth were as fair and impartial i'm
lhe trial OF criminals as any people he
had ever known. ana that he believed
mat Portsmouth jury cauld be procur-
rd VINO could and would give an abso-
!utclN fair and impartial trial regard
Tess OF the crime committed.
MIR. Fl. l., Maynard was the next Wit
ness and said that hc believed there
would be no difficulty in procuring Il
Jury that would render a fair and IN
prcjudced verdict. Or. y. l.. Bilisoly.
Messrs. John II. Hume, John H. Wat
son. John II. King, Thomas Scott and
John {. iImmerson testified in sub
stanc" as above, that they thought Il
fair trial could be had from a Ports
mouth jury The examining Of these
witnesses occupied the time Of the court
from IL o'clock until =. At o'clock
Judge Murdaugh opened the argument
in defense Of his motion for a change
OF venue. Judge Murdaugh made
vigorous speech. clear and logical
Major Cracker followed in n very brief
address and at the conclusion Of his
remarks recess was taken until 4
O'Clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The court resumed session ut i o'clock,
when Captain X. G.. Marshall began his
argument for Il change OF venue At 6
u. III. II" closed The court then review
rd til" testimony. ana said that there,
were but TWO witnesses that had been
summoned for the defendant tina, said
hey thought that the prisoner could not
set Il fair trial. y number Of other gen
llcmcn had testified that they Thought
there NDllij lJ,. nn IN in
Jury ana that the affidavit OF the pri-
Sonci saying that he could not get Il
iar trial WAS not sufficient evidence
The law REQUIRED more than the pri-
sonerS affidavit. lie would therefore
deny the motion. ana if in the selection
OF Il jury ii was shown that there was
| prejudice, &c. il could be rcmedicd
Captain Marshall asked the Court to
note INC objection of counsel TO the rui-
ing, which was done. He then called
Tor the Tcnirr farias by which the grand
jury ana hc Vrnir had been sum-
iuuncd. The clerk produced these He
then objected to the vcnirc racias on the
ground that the proper returns had not
h%cn made, and asked hal ii be reject
| "d rs they had not l,ccl, summoned ac-
ccrdnG 10 law, the law requiring that
the jurors should he summoned ten
days. h"1"rr The time for the court ia
meet. and that the grand jury had only
been summoned three days
lhiS caused considerable argument on
hoih sides The court then ovcrrulcd the
motion OF the defendant
III" defendants then objected to the.
Ncnrc iAc!aS by which ;hc Vrurc had
been summoned, ana gave as their rea-
son that il had NOT been done in accord
ancc with law. as il was only marked
executed and signed by the Sergeant
This caused more argument. The de-
PENDANT then mad, n motion that IL be
rejected. This WAS amended by The
commonwealth, who asked that the
sheriff be allowed time to amend the re-
turn. Much law was read and con.
siderable argument by counsel on both
sides. The court again denied the mo-
ton of the defendant. to which exccp-
tiOnS We're taken.
After Sonc consultation the Common
wealth asked the court 10 reconsider it's
decision and TO allow the motion of the
counsel for the defendant TO prevail,
and TO dismiss the vrnire already sum
muned, and to issue a new venirc facias
20 he rcturnablc on Saturday,
This the court decided to do. The coun
sci for the defense asked that their OBJ
lection IN this case also be noted There
was more Sparring after which at 7 y.
IN. the court adjourned.