The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-06-20
THE NORFOLK INCIDENT.
rhe Norfolk Dispatch saws:


The Times Dispatch. OF Richmond,
takes as It's text for an extremely able
editorial paragraph from Its Norfolk
correspondence relating to tho recent trial
and release OF young man well known
In society
Tho Times-Dispatch's theme is set forth
az follows:
Our Norfolk correspondent. in report
Ing trial in the Corporation Court or
that city, says that the accused. who
was on trial for larceny. is well known
as one OF tho most expert railway clerks.
and because OF his numerous and respect.
able family connections, after celebrating
fifteen minutes. the jury returned with
n verdict of not guilty
This Is, indeed. n startling statement.
We know nothing about the merits or
dement's Of tho case, but If the accused
was guilty OF the crime with which he
was charged, how, in tho name of jus
tice. could he BIO acquitted because OF
his family connections?"
Our contemporary then adds: We hope
that there is some mistake about this
Afterwards 1t reads as pretty and hs
Just Il sermon on It's text as we have
noted In many day.
Tho Dispatch hopes that II would not be
necessary to go to Richmond to find a
newspaper to protest against any ruling
of n court or judge or action of a jury
that would permit man to go free and
,,nwhippcd Of justice In local court
simply because OF his pull or social posi-
ton.
There were circumstances that sur
rounded the case IN question that leave
the verdict Of Judge and jury most mer-
itorlous one, and we are sure that any
prisoner, no matter how little his influ-
ence and how poor his social standing.
would have been treated as was the young
man In question under similar circum-
stances.
It seems that the charge rested against
tho prisoner Of obtaining. under false pre-
lenses, something over five hundred dol
lars on certain day. AS we understand
tho matter his counsel showed that he,
had obtained something less than twenty
five dollars on this day or. at least. n
small enough sum to make the matter
petit larceny" at the worst. Moreover,
1t was not shown clearly or conclusively.
as we understand the matter, that he OBJ
tanned even this small sum under prom
ises which were proven to be falsehoods.5
At any rate. the prisoner had been pun
ished already by confinement In the city
jail for some five weeks. Perhaps the.
fact that his family connections or ante
cedents were good affected the jury some.
what. It is certain that those who had
known him under brighter auspices did
not desert him entirely when trouble over
took him. But there Is no reason, so far
as we can learn. to believe that he was
not tried strictly In accordance with the
law and the evidence. nor was the pros
ccutlon lacking in vgor. Nor do we be-
lieve that he could possibly have escaped
IL these had been against him.
We arc glad to hear this assurance
from our esteemed contemporary. AS we
stated in our comments we did not under
take to pass Judgment upon the Norfolk
man, for we knew nothing about the
case except what VIC had seen in the pa
per. We employed the incident as text
for some general observations, and as
according to the Dispatch, the Norfolk
man was acquitted for other reasons. and
not because OF his family connections,
of course. our comments did not apply
to this case.