The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-01-13

H. B ||EF
| s5 MEMS AND BOYS
'-'''''' -
Ing Of newspapers BY IA he jury It Il 5l y
dear from tile record tina t permission
"a I. 4, ked IN open court that the jllr
might nave this privilege, to when re
nnestGneit,ler aprosecution& nor DEF ense o.
Sinrtrfl & 4 t{#thc time. Having permitted
5such rea ling u tho defense rs este ppeo
Isthcrcafter from specifying this as ~ op,
|Eiectioi to the. act ton el25 q c ci
menhayeiights which they ~ !, Waavu |,
|sbut they have others which they n N y
IA ~ ~ yield, lust as a. complainant IN
any other case might do. III \, /.
There is every reason o; believe u NY ~
the f@fivc able and expcrien ccd l.1l'rlisa 3
5n,cnFoff tho highest Integrity, fully real
|izlng$ the 6;responsibity upon hen ~.
weighed every question 9 law = nu Itlc.
raised by the defense and dec ,'t, 4
Enccording " to accepted proceed ents 8a!ld ~
most universal procedt IRE NY !
grasp of tic entire cnse--t nc seS ~
|Ihe exceptions, the grounds on Wn ~,
1 an a. were based and the authorities cited
IL s,Iupo,t Of them That they have a 81 e.
nd &only nftcrFamnturp, though ttul "A and
m tient consideration OF I'LL the issues ~
VOWED goes Without sayln q Is Is tIe
Gus ON ofi courts to hand "A down mercy
tic tementt heir ctionlftlpsoon peti-
tions OF this charactc lley, sta I 7 upo'.
dues ioning them wth5rcfe thereto Ct
81 course n. they nre liable to
|Ehut3ih Is to be expected the v {:
ssencc of any statementIto the#co 81 y =
Is inevitable Tina g the ll lv
ointment Niursts agreed as to mn 'l ~ s
lSrial point i'll the case. .s Il Il 55 Isl s5
Under T errible& Suspense. 4.
IN besides the grea responsibility IMPOSED o'
snnnn ia Judges Of tic Supreme Court q
Appeas byS tile decision the ease Z. I, = :
must DO recalled that the court nod !, llttle
Iftimc to consider the pet lon and tile 81
|fcor(l. lii one. from to "a Inc se.
IBtencc Of the trial court will be 8execuse Z,
|S,rhc petition was presented January w
ISlen Wing Ii, all lust seventeen days between
the date of$its presentation and the gay y
lived for lie execution. In considering
Iithis cnse Tie court doubtless realized Inc
fact that every day that passed $Wltllso 10y
luctiol,3 OH the petition was q day OF Eii.'-
rowing innxiety&to rs the T'rlsonef--Wo o. ~
even than the certainty conveyed jiby tsie
announcement ,of tho action. his 4 con
sideraton undoubtedly impelled tn, the court
10 pass upon the petition at tlle ea rllest
day, compatible with the careful Inntd pa :
I tient consideration due the pet ton anu 2
the gravity OF the issue inyolYe II I,
The petition the caseis without uo \. q
an able and even brilliant presentation
from the standpoint or *tho defense II
Is a strongly written paper and " til g
opinion OF excellent critics has literary
ability as we'll as legal fastuteness stamp
cd upon$ The 1T torneys who prepared
isit#arc8 widely known as N well qualified
|luwycrs and brilliant ysplcndcrs and 5$are
Vigorous ana stubborn fighters, leaving
|sunnotlced no point OH Which the court
|5might&bc Fconstraihed to stay the terrible
Ifate OF their client. That AL that lesal
liability and talent could do for tho prls-
Toner has been done there Is little room
for doubt. Despite this the court lIls
unanimously affirmed the action OF the
lower court In refusing TO grant tho writ
for. " ~
The Exceptions. 81
| or tho forty-flvc exceptions noted Il thu
following Is Enn abSt ract from the netltlor
or those specifically suited therein N NJ @
IiS hCNGcptlOIlalS
| 5of tile COMMANDMENTS replication inithe
matter or the eligibility OF Grand Juror
Lyman. The action OF. the court iii sub.
hitting 10 ~ jury the question OF Lyman s
eligibility. over the objection Of tho nc
cused, ID the second exception The mo-
| ton to set aside the verdict of the Jury
| in tho Lyman matter and the oYerrulinE
| Of same lily the court are tho subject OF
the fourth except iont IL s5# ftE$sl lp a
Tho fifth cxceptlon5is ms to tho act lon
Of the court IN accepting u. r. stockdol
as i momber of the panel for tho trlal
or! pet tioners case, Tho ground OF oh,
| section Is thai thore was doubt as to- the
| impartinllty of Juror StockdelL which
doubt, tho plaintiff lii error contends
should have been solved In his favor, W
\ Tho sixth exception was as TO the ac'
I ton of the court in accepting Jnd, q
Wood as a member of theinanel for the
4 trial OF petitioners Gnsc, on the grount
, Of his statement that ha Ind formed ans
expressed an opinion ais 10 tho guilt o.
innocence Of the petitioner, and that
/ VAS IL dacided one. gi NJ $ s IN
IA Exception No, Z Is as to tllo courts
action In excluding Frank Ii.yTyler from
/ the panel, against petitioners objection
\ the ..grpunl of exclusion being Tyler
statement that he would not convict Il
IA capital case On ci,pulnstnntl ul evidence
lunless THE case were proved sbeyond tn
peradyenturc OF doubt, !"
i I. The eighth exception Is an q The court
action ~ permitting Witness M. kauf
4 man TO he asked whether OF not, IN HI
opinion, n small piece OF cloth. ;illege1
to have been found By . certain NJ. q
4 IJurrette IN the bnthgopm Of netltioner'
Residence on the day following the al
A legged murder wns q purt5Sof the under
shirt alleged 10 haze been worn by petit
4 toner pir,lhe night, Of the alleged murder
and " 50. ~,llal part, and in lpermiltin
Il The said Iianfnanhto answer said qnes