The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-02-13
to ray anything about the other d,

WhSisIn inc ueIenoRnt IN the AHlherHt
proceedings had Eocceeded In so qualify
Ing the testimony Of Mr.. whitehead's
witnesses that I'VE didn't think II nec-
ossnry to Introduce evidence, but rested
our CASIO on the strength of what the
Understandable OF Mr.. whItchead's
witnesses had brought FORTH
isn't II "a fact, Mr.. Payne" asked
Judge Loving, that you advised Mr..
Day to plead guilty In the five cnaes
against him because you wore familiar
with Tho facts and knew that yo,ir client
had violated tho law, ana TINT tho mini.
mum ,,ra mo wtls good eecape7'
mat Is moro argument than question:
Judge Loving. but havo no hesltanoy
ne 10 answering i. know nothing Of any
upon to have suoh knowledge and
didn't wish to-
Arc your prepared to say. Mr.. Payne,
Tint Mr.. Day was not violating the lnw7'
oh. I heard RI,
II don't want to know what you heard.
hT. t'ayne,i but what you know OF your
! own personal knowledge DO YOU moan
to Say that you did not know yourself
that Mr.. Day was violating the law7.s
y most certainly DO mean to say that
very thing. Z 81
ANOTHER JURYsrAN.
Another mem Der OF the Jury which tried
Judge campbell-hlr. w. M. Burford-rol-
| 1VVOA 49, IlS 10 Itlo 1I1a WIT
| ness denied in whole the testimony OF
Mr.. Bowen, who said he overheard that
| startling conversation In the jury-roor,1.
Most emphat1cally he, declared that there
! was absolutely no foundation for the
statements OF Mr.. Bowen that thore was
a resolution on the part OF the Jurymen
to acquit Judge Campbell despite MI
law and evidence. ae did not even hear
Mr.. Woodruff make that remark that he
wouldn't carry In O verdict Of not guilty
because It would be a disgrace to tho
county. Mr. Burford also declared that
to the best Of his knowledge and belief
the jury had not applauded when the
verdict was rend cred.
When did You arrive in Richmond,
Mr., Burford7.' asked Mr.. Strobe.
This afternoon on the 8 o'clock train,
You didn't hear the other, jurymen
testifyT'j q.
mo, SIR.
what did Mr. woodruff say in the
jury-room p
II don't rem ember."
| Didn't he say anythlng7"
Hold on, and I'll try to think"
"A1l right"
II remeuaber that Mr.. woodruff said
heswould object to bringing In verdict
OF acquittal IL It wasn't for his father,
who was a bitter opponent Of Judge
Campbell" 81
WHO was the foreman OF the Jury,
Mr. Burford?" -
II don't remember positively. but ]
think 1t was Mr.. Hryor.''
Wasn't there q. proposition to make
Mr. Woodruff foreman OF the jury?n
Il think not
Now, think, Mr.. Burford. Isn't 1t a
fact that there was such a proposition
and that you yourself said Woodruff was
too strong an anti-campbell man. and
should not be at the head of the J,ry7"
!, DIDN'T REMEMBER.
did. ~ '-A'Dst' uoA 1nlnR :
did any whiskey reach the juryl'
II think we had some whiskey on the
first night
WHO got it7"
The deputy sheriff" y.
WHO paid for it2" a34
I'VE pitched in and bought it our
Selves
How much OF 1t was there7'.
You know how far quart will go,
Mr.. Strobe. I think that is all we had
There were thirteen Of us. including tho
deputy sheriff, and we each had a little
| DRAM
Enough to make you see vlsionsa"
mo, STR
"A MOST PECULIAR AFFAIR.
A disposition was then manifested by
| 0tEUuo 70 QucSuON Nll6
with reference to the affidavit from him
recently filed and published in this pa
per. IN this affidavit, p,lrported to be
from Mr.. Buford, the afnant swore to
the existence OF a conspiracy among the
| jurymen to cut and shoot their way
out Of court before they would permit
themselves to be lmpeached- The affi-
davit could not be found nt once. how
ever. and Mr. Buford was asked to
stand aside for few moments. Other
| witnesses were called out then. When
the affidavit was found Mr.. Buford was
recalled. The paper was read by Mr..
Strobe, who asked Mr.. Buford If he
had made any such statements-if the
| affidavit was correct =
| Part Of It," said Mr.. Buford-
'"Is that your signature on the pa
peru
Yves, SIR
"And yet you say only part OF It is
true?''
q should like to explain" said the
these affldavits, and the one I have is
! different from the one you read. i
signed them both. But wish it under
stood I admit that said part that
Is In the affidavit to q. friend, Mr.. Tins
ley. Mr.. Tansley went TO Amherst
and had the two affidavits drawn up.
I was asked to sign them. but re-
|
that couldn't agree to them. They
started to change It, but the man who
was interlining 1t said that when they
| got through It would be so erased and
marked up that the affidavit couldn't
be read. So they told me to sign them
and that later there would be two new
aff1davits drawn up, meeting my views.
Mr.. Otto L, Evans told me posiu
that the af1davits would not be pro-
duced against mo and that I should
hear no more Of them, because they
didn't state what I said But Mr.
Evans said he would prepare new
affidavit and that they Just wanted the
Others signed meanwhile. That's what
Mr.. Evans said 9nd that's tho only
agreement on which signed the two
papers. But Mr.. Evans didn't keep his
agreement. T never did see any other
aftldavits, and the next I heard of the
matter the wrong one had signed until
the other could be prepared was pre-
scented here in Richmond and was pub
lished In the newspa pers.