Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-05-07
VERDICT SET ASIDE.
JUDGE INGRAM ovERRuLEs JuRY's
FINDING IN MAYO CASE.
,ONTRARY TO LAW AND EVIDENCE.
These the Grounds on which the
Manchester Jurist Bases His De-
Grocer Fafls-Pcrsonnl. SC.

Slctcd in Manchester or an attempt 10
commit criminal assault upon Mrs. Nan
ME Il. Lowry. viii not serve In the pcni-
tertiary the ten years term which the
jury felt to be his due.
Instead OF being sentenced yesterday,
as had been expected. Mayo heard from
the lips OF Judge John II. Ingram words
which annulled the verdict OF the jury.
and practically reduced his punishment
70 year IN Jail, as he could not give The
1000 bond required for his good behavior
for twelve months.
when the trial was concluded last
week. after a two days hearing. and
counsel made the usual motion 10 set
aside the verdict as contrary 10 the
law and the evidence Judge Ingram
promptly ovcrruled Il. and steps We're
taken looking 10 an appeal. But the
more ne thought over the matter. the
less positive he became that the evil
dence made ont case and warranted
the verdict returned. lie visited the
scene Of the alleged offence, and this
satisfied him that the law and the facts
did not justify the conviction. Therefore,
ne filed in writing his reasons for chang
ing his position and requiring security OF
the prisoner.
OPINION OF THE JUDGE.
The following is Judge Migrants de-
cision in fun:
In the case OF the Commonwealth VS..
Wesley Mayo. convicted by the jury at
This term Of an attempt 70 commit rape
I have decided TO set aside the verdict OF
the jury finding the prisoner guilty and
,asr--f,., IfS r,tfvfzrp,auf a ten wears
confinement in the pcnitentiary. as being
contrary 10 tho law and the evidence.
As this case has naturally attracted a
good deal Of attention ! deem 1t proper
TO set forth. az writing, the reasons for
my judgment
GIVES HIS REASONS.
on yesterday. in the company OF a court
official (who went with the jury. when
hey viewed the location and place where
he alleged crime is charged 10 have been
committed, / visited the scene of action,
and whilst l had practically made up my
mind TO set aside the verdict in this case,
4 view o. the premises removed any pos
sble doubts l might have had about the
oropriety OF such course.
The place where the prisoner is said 10
have pursued the prosecutriX is in plain
and open view. not only Of her own house
and OF tbs out-houses in her yard occu-
pied by family, but e likewise in fun
and open view of the house of Mr.. Ira
Anderson. and is but a short distance
from each Of these houses
The prisoner and the prosecutrix could
easily have been seen by persons in either
the back or front OF Mr.. Anderson's
premises, or by parties in the yard Of Mr..
Lowrie. or BY persons in either field, or
in the road leading from the turnpike
oil ~ HaharEfg and Anderson
residences.
The time Of the alleged commission of
the offence was between and % o'clock
on Sunday morning. These are facts in
dependent OF the direct testimony, which
must be borne in mind in determining the
guilt or innocence Of the prisoner and in
estimating the weight and sufficiency of
the testimony in the case
MRS. LOWRIE'S TESTIMONY.
/ shall. in discussing the evidence con-
fine myself almost exclusively TO the tes-
tmOny OF the prosecutriX, and shall only
incidentally allude TO the other proof in
the case.
First. l would say that / am satisfied
that the prisoner exposed his person 10
the prosecutrix and made certain indie
cent motions of his body, and further
more. that his desires were purient and
improper
But the doing Of these acts alone viii
not warrant the conviction Of the prison
or; the evidence must satisfy the jury
70 a moral certainty and beyond a rea-
sonable doubt that the prisoner COM
mitted the very offence Of which he was
charged that is. that the prisoner at
tempted TO carnally know the pTosecu- |
trix by force and against her VIII, and |
unless the facts demonstrate this the |
prisoner must be acquitted.
The prisoner ran towards the prosscu- /
trix twice. The 18th question Of the 4
direct examination was TEL the jury /
exactly what this man did" The answer /
Of Mrs Lowrie was. "He ran out after
me over this ground. and I would not |
have had time to get out Of his way"
The 18TH question was. How far did |
be rum" Answer-About forty yards-this
was the first time
The Goth question was. did he do any
thing else at that time?" Answer-No. sir;
he seemed TO be waiting for me 10 come
further
The second time the prosecutrix said
the prisoner ran towards her a distance
Of 100 yards, but on neither occasion got
nearer 10 her than thirty-five or forty
yards And when asked II prisoner could
have caught her If he had wanted to,
replied Yes; and when asked why he
stopped (and ne stopped at same point or
spot both times). answered. Because
he wanted 20. J guess
Although she did not say at one point
In her testimony. she thought prisoner
stopped because he was afraid: but when
recalled. prosecutrix said. emphaticaEy,
that prisoner could not and did not see
Mr. Lowrie and Mr.. Hobeck, as they
came up. Prcsecutrix further said. in
answer 10 52d question. as to whether he
stopped. answered, Yes, sir; ] stopped
and ne stopped"
At this point 81 should be remembered
that Mrs Lowre, the prosecutrix. in go
Ing after the horses was going towards
he prisoner
WHEN THB ACCUSED RAN.
The inculpatory circumstance that the
prisoner ran when pursued by Mr..
Lowrie and Mr. Hobeck must be con-
sdereG IN the light Of the fact that he
had exposed his person and made indie
cent motions which alone would have
justified fears on his part of condign
punishment at the hands OF these gentle
men. There were children with Mrs.
Lo%rie. or in her yard, within easy call;
Also there was a colored woman within
reach. Mr. Lowrie. the husband. saw.
The prisoner, but his actions made no par
ticular impression on him. Between the
first and second time the prisoner ran
towards the prOsecutrix 4 cOlored man
passed by the prisoner. and was seen by
he prosecutrix. A fuller relation of the
testimony ] deem unnecessary, il has all
been Published in the daily
papers The jury that tried this case
was composed OF twelve estinable gen
lemen. and their verdict was the result
Jf an honest discharge Of duty on their
nart and l have no censure for them.
hnf the resnonsibilifv was and Is with