The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-08-19

fuse to serve in the case . All of which
goes to show that the Commonwea tbs
petition was well founded upon the facts
stated, in that an unbiased jury couiuE
not be found IN Amherst county. and
the accused by excepting to the in
PRODUCTION of this evidence, and the iai
court by refusing to allow the same. have
in effect admitted the truth of the facts
stated in said petition.
v. INSTRUCTIONS
In matter of giving the instructions
asked for by the accused, the trial court
committed palpable error: first, in try NJ
to shut off the argument of the Common
wealths Attorney. (See PIP. 392 81 Second.
that after allowing the amendment e.
gested by the attorney for lie Common
wealth to instruct on No. G. offered by
the defense, which originally read as fol-
lows:
instruction No. g. The court instructs
the jury that an unloaded small riding
whip or switch is not deemed a deadly
weapon at law reasonably calculated TO
produce death or great bodily harm, and
that the use of such instrument In
crowed thoroughfare more especially
when more deadly weapons were at
hand equally convenient, negatives the
inference or presumption of intent to
kill and murder; therefore the jury must
acquit the accused of the charge, unless
they find from evidence aliunde that
such was the sole intent and purpose of
the defendant, and nothing else"
And as amended: 50 Therefore
the jury must acquit the accused of the
charge Of intent to kill and murder UNI
less they find from evidence aiiunde
such was the sole intent and purpose
OF the defendant, and nothing else.''
The court Immediately, on the heels
of this and in the teeth Of the protest
of the attorney for the Commonwealth.
follows:
obstruction No T. The court In
structs the jury that to constitute the
crime charged in the Indictment, there
must not only be personal injury done
to the prosecutor, of the nature above
described, but that the injury done must
have been prepetrated with one or other
of the intents specified in the statute,
viz, the accused must hare intended
to MAIN. dsfgure. disable OF kill. and
nothing else, or else the accused must
be found not guilty" (see page 4W.)
Finally, the court after giving instruc-
ton No. l for the Commemorative:
1.-The court instructs the jury that no
words of reproach, however grievous. is
sufficient povocation to justify as
sault." and refusing to give No. Is for
the defense, which was as follows:
1.-The court instructs the jury that II
upon the whole evidence in this case
there is any rational hypothesis consls-
tent with the conclusion that the assault
by the accused was excusable or justt-
fled, the accused cannot be convicted of
any offense and the jury must find him
not guilty"
The Judgment of the court in refusing
this instruction being based upon the
contention of the Commonwealth (Which
was practically admitted By counsel for
the accused) that there was no evidence
to sustain the same. In the fact OF
this, the court refused to give instruc-
ton No O. offered by the Commonwealth,
which is as follows:
..The court instructs the jury that
nothing contained in the publication of
the criticism in the newspaper called
the Christian Federation, by Z. II.
Crawford (Which publication has been
given in evidence in this cause by inc
.defendant) and nothing that has been
said or done by the said c. II. Craw-
ord at any time before, at the time OF.
or since said publication. as test1neo 10
in this case, is sufficient to JUSTIFY or
excuse the defendant for the assault
made by said defendant upon the said
Crawford. as testified to in this case.
vi.
The court erred in allowing crowd or
the friends of the accused to crowd ABOUT
the bar, witness and jury STANDS. VINO.
by their repeated laughter and applause.
,raiie it apnear according to the langua ge
~ the court that the proceedings were.
more like political meeting tnan the
trial of a case in a court of justice
VII. SERIOUS ERROR.
A most seriou. error on the part of the
corr was committed late Saturday eve
ming. when counsel for the accused hav-.
Ing finished their argument, petitioners
counsel was forced to close the argument
for the Commonwealth between twilight and
dark. when he was hungry, sick and bro
KEN down. and this because the prisoner
insisted that his supper would not be
reody until after P. NJ, and he insisted
that the case go on. (See Bill of Excep-
lions No. ~
After the case had been given to the
fury and they had been out some hours.
it being then about twenty-five minutes
to - o'clock Saturday night, the jury
having been called into the court and 1t
having been announced by member of
the same, in response to pointed ques-
ton asked by the court of a juror, that
they stood eleven to one for acouittal.
the accused and his counsel insisted. In
the presence Of the jury. that they be
sent back to their room. and II they did
not agree "llHlN twenty live tHd1
they be kept over until Monday morning.
and with this threat ringing in their
ears and against the protest of the attor-
ney for the Commonwealth. who insisted
that the jury either be Immediately dis
charged or adjourned at once to Monday
morning the court permitted the said
jury to be thus coerced into bringing in
a verdict (See Bill of Exceptions No. 81
TX.
It will next be shown that the finding
OF the said jury was directly in opposi-
ton to all the evidence and of every in
struction given by the court. unless it be
No Z, offered for defense and improperly
allowed That this Is true cannot be bet.
ter demonstrated than by quoting selec-
items from the evidence. more particularly
that Of the accused himself. See pages
1855, as follows:
c. ]. Camptell-"I said to Mr.. Turner: