Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-03-05
PRICE TO Be RETIRED,
Another Chance for the Slayer
Of Hall Carter,
JUDGE MANN'S ARGUMENT
In the Circuit Court Of Prince
Edward County.
COMMONWEALTH FIGHTS HARD.
Judge Hundiey's Decisiou-The Point
on Which the Question Turned
Responsibility ana Premcditation
when Man is Drunk.
COMMONWEALTH FIGHTS HARD.

FARAiNlLLE, VA, March f-(SpeciaIl
In the Circuit Court OF this comfy this
morning the case OF Thomas w. Price
was brought up upon writ OF error from
the County Court, I'm which a Jury con-
Vlcted the prisoner Of murder In the first
degree. lt Will be recalled by the readers
or the Dispatch that on the 18th day of
July. 1898. Mr.. Price shot and mortally
wounded Mr.. Hall Carter. at his Price's)
nome near Darlington Heights. The pri.
soner was lodged in the county jail here.
and FOR some time thereafter and untfl
after his trial and conviction at the fol-
lowing term OF the County Court there
were fears of violence being done him.
50 great was the indignation over what
then, at least, was considered one OF the
most unprovoked murders that have eve,
stained the history Of the Southslde.
Upon the conviction Of Price at the Au.
gust term of the County Court he was
sentenced to be hanged on the ioth day
Of October but before that day arrived,
through the efforts OF the condemned
mans attorney. Hon. william II. Mann
writ OF error and supersedeas was Sc.
cured in vacation from Judge Hundley
and then the hearing OF argument upor
this writ was postponed until the present
term Of the court.
At 10 o'clock this morning court opened
and soon thereafter Mr.. A. J. Price
brother OF the prisoner entered and held
a brief consultation with counsel for tho
defence. As soon as the two were through
talking Judge Mann arose and stated tc
the Court that IL was the wish OF the
prisoner that he be allowed TO remain ir
Jail while his case was being discussed
The CONT compiled. saying that thest
was no necessity Of mis- being brought in.
Judge Mann then opened the argument
and spoke for more than an hour. Tho
first point OF error I'm the Trial court 10
which Judge Mann directed the attention
of tho court was that upon the trial or
Price, after an the Commonwealth Wit
nesses had been examined and It's side
had announced as through. AIRS. Price,
wife Of the prisoner, who was a witness,
of course. for the defence. was recalled
by the prosecution for the purpose OF lay
ing a foundation Tor the impeachmcnt
TO this being done. and the Court over
ruled the objection Mrs. Prices recall
10 the stand was after both the prosccu-
ton and the defence were through with
all testimony and when IL was too late
for the defence 10 have opportunity for
sustaining her as It's witness by putting
on other witnesses supreme Court de-
cisions were cited to show that this was
an error on the part of the trial court.
At the trial Of Price there was tosti-
mony tending TO show that al the time ot
the killing he was intoxicated. Judge
Mann took Up one of the instructions,
which was given by the court 10 the
jury I'm which they were instructed that
no man could make himself 20 drunk as
To- become irresponsible for his acts and
that If the jury believed the killing was
wilful they should md verdict OF MUIR
der In the first degree. Judge Mann said
that that instruction did not go tar
enough. II should not have stopped az
the word wilful. All killing was wilful.
IL ought 10 have read. "Wnful premedi-
tated, and with malice" lie argued also
that a man could be- 20 drunk AS not 10
be- able TO premeditate. and, therefore. II
when In such condition bee had killed
fellow being there could be- no murder n
the first degree.
INSUFFICIENCY or EVIDENCE
Judge Mann then took up the point %
OF evidence. aud cOntondcd
that his client should have another trial.
II Tor the reason alone that there was
not evidence 10 warrant the verdict. As
10 the testimony Of Spencer Hin, the only
eyewitness TO the tragedy. he said that
il was 4 physical impossibihty for the
statements made by that witness 20 have
been correct and 90 vas largely upon
his evidence that his client was con-
yicted.
Mr. ". c. FRANKLIN. Of the prosecution,
followed Judge Mann. lie spoke briefly.
He argued that the recalling Of Mrs
Price 10 the Witness-stdnd was pcrInis-
sible and within the sound discretion Of
the Court and cited what he contonded
was good authority % sustain this lie
said 1t was not necessary for the Com
monwealth 10 show motive for such
crime. and referred 20 a number Of cases
10 sustain this proposition.
Judge A. ID. Watkins, Commonwealth
Attorney, followed Mr.. Franklin lie
spoke ably and forcibly for more than
three hours. Judge Mann closed the ar
gument for the defence. His speech was
listened 20 with rapt attention and his
nal plea 10 the Court 10 set aside the
verdict was, without doubt. one OF the
most brilliant efforts ever heard In this
county.
NEW TRIAL GRANTED.
AZ the conclusion OF Judge Manns clos
Ing argument, Judge Hundley. who
Sas presiding said: Il have read care
fully the record in this case. but my
memory Of u Is not perfectly clear. Yet,
from the view / take OK n. IL IS not ne
'essary for me 10 go over IL again The
statute lays down that husband and wife
may testify. but neither can be compelled
10. and since Mrs Price was witness
or her husband. she could not be made
, Commonwealth witness - being re-
,alled By the prosecution ans subjected 20
mother crOss-examinatiOn."
In rendering his decision. which sets
aside the verdict OF TIE jury and remands
the case back 10 the County Court for re-
trial. Judge Hundiey spoke at length
Referring 20 the instructions OF the trial
court touching the responsibility OF
drunken person, he said that instruction
was wrong. A man can be made so drunk
a. TO bo irresponsible for his acts. A
man can be SO drunk as 10 be Incapable
Df premedtating. and u AZ such a time
he should kin another in the absence OF
he premeditation, there could be no yer-
dict OF murder in the first degree.
Immediately after the decision or the