The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-01-04

IN 10 MCOIlbItoSpS iSSSiiAAt
tteo Of Public Safety Which Was 9 e-
after long siege wasB , tak 3, the
JAiccuc, lilo next morning q tier t he, Inter-
yiew At the vine &c lar and Wlls her "
not WIlinni Nicl,uc wi.0t q oph VIVA ~
Perry said on that occaslo he ~.
hsf1nS tiersh
statement 10 tho witness, illiam ~ ~ e-jS
Cue and which ut wa clatt,eu y ile
afterwards wrote out, iisSs AZ S Ils
II Itxception 40 relntes to tho pcrrni ltiilg n
by the court or the reading 70 the. Jury "
by counsel for tho5 rrosec ton i Of. tiie
paper purportng to be he stil teme n
PeTsy w51ta a9W iian
hicCue denied writing the statement nt \,
sthc8lme John Perry ma lie tt or IL Pcriyls
presence; thnt Perry rcpud tied tho sta teeSs
Incnt when y was read 70 him, Ild 8 lnta
statement 10 liam M Cue IA 7 all II II
is commended that the statement, SO fAr t..l
as petitioner Is oncerned was Y he &verle3t
heursny. a $5 III 4Ssf5
Regarding Instructions.
Exception a was ps to b. action Of
tons and especially e instructions
20, y and l25to5Whieh
the DISTINCTIONS sloeci-%
fled that the EreaS0na bic doubt must be-
serious and ubstantia IN order q VI H.
rant an qulttal, sss 10 word quo ed bs-3
ling italics. This language ana It's prob ~
suble effect are discussed "a some length.
Exception forty two re IA tcsS to 4 thes3rr.s
8fusai Of the ourt3tos give two Instructions "
spnabe 1i ensoayins Inc
That ninety-nlne an Indefinite numher5
one inin5ocent person should DO punished.
Judge christiai,'s opinion In SIN lth case
Us quoted ,ilSsup port Of tn sonndness OF
\ " Exception forty-threc Y relates ii }i he's
court action IN nendfng ins truction !
twentY-one ~ inserting 4 nc words mot h
! to- statementsSalleged have been made 4
by lWilltuIn M y ohm Perry.
the presence or the Jury aftcr I he closing
argument on behalf or pet tionersll been
ssySnoHdea g. which s,nteens CANAAN
Zee 10 prosecute petitioner. II Pcti,ionera
contends that the sta tetnent was wholly
hoPhe ana hat sh9nla a
ms the ii rys could not possibly have disrc-5
Ggurded the statement | r 4 they had been
TOLD, vas Is, an nnWarra {. I statement
Pjury.Gsays petitioner FL Il 8$ 53 33i
3 Exception forty five rela tes o3thc action
of the trial conrtsin refusing to set aside
the yerdict. as contrary to the law AMI 2
the evidence, and grant pc titioner IL new
trial: Here follows, an elaborate analysis
K f$tl1e9eEidencG9 a,idnced at the trlal. &
interviewing tile evidence irelativato$th tho +
relations Of fhe petitioner aud his WIFE,
\ the petitioner sarcasttcally refers 70 Cap
tam Woods In this language: s.
Regarding Captain Wood
,,s q =! ss s8$
The point ins!,and IS SO Ipuerio as 'tsSSbe
SComr,onwenIth, Captain SWootis who VIZ In
Btrelduced itSaId whbSocc,ip.sd ftna stiniG,Ie2
md envia BID ~ posi ZION I, nrDea rinp for
the the prosscut,onI 81 Ms friend tof Evenly
4 ndin1 IVA l. h
%Imnnrta n 13risil shi,, sce M 4 M "a hpr
ErowedF from anmt y III, ~ seek Inn ryes ikn
4reedia NOM d m ioa nnI fthem - Ia fhS
sef-sacriiicinr3 leader 3 pthe prnsecut,on.B
,.Tt ID he inSed howetn ~ tRnt sneil Mar
in lis view OF tnis evdence mo inhis
Sfrlendshp Viii he nice II 1nanyStolo
Gurs F NJ III
aa Tho pet toner lnbora ely rS uess that
" lllG t1lllltlSf Jurors were plu SEQ ny