The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-06-27

WunuLn ulhL
BEGINS TODAY
Continued From First Page.)
that this order applies to any other ply
sician as we'll. ,
/ We had Intended to use Dr. Rucker and
other physicians as witnesses in behalf
of Mrs. Smith, and we regard this action
as an interference wish our preparation
for trial. and as practical denial of our
clients constitutional rights. DR.. Rucker.
we understand, took the position that he
would not attend q patient where he
was subjected to such surveillance. The
question Is one which each physician VIII,
settle for himself; but we have reason to
believe that every self-respecting physi-
clan Will take the same stand. But, how
ever that may be, we claim on behalf OF
our client the right to have reputable
physicians talk with and examine her free
from any such supervision. Our client,
has not been convicted, but Is held In GUS
tody TO await trial, and we respectfully
submit that size should be allowed every
right In preparation for trial that Is
allowed a person not in custody, so far
as the same does not conflict with the
proper management and discipline OF the
Jail. @
II this right is denied us, 1t will greatly
hinder us In our defense, and may render
1t Impossible for us TO be prepared for
trial at the time appointed, to-wlt: Juno
27th
we respectfully request that Your
Honor will issue such an order as will
correct this condition Of affairs.
We beg to remain, Your Honor's most
obedier1t servants,
(sIgncd) H NJ. SMITH. JR.,
L. H. WELLS.
Judges Reply.
TO which letter Judge Clopton replied:
Manchester Va, June 8, 1906.
Messrs. II. M. Smith, Jr., and +. H. Wells,
Attorneys at Law, Richmond, Va: Il
Dear Srs,$--Your note OF the 1st instant,
relating to Dr. Rucker's Visiting your
client, Mrs. S. X. Smith, In the city jail,
has been duly considered.
The sergeant was acting under my or
ders, which were general and applicable to
all prisoners and all PHYSICIANS
can see no reason why this rule should
be altered in this case, unless good cause
can be shown to me, which has not yet
been done 8
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM 7. CLOPTON.
Are at Loss. AZ
Messrs. Smith and Wells then replied:
June IS, 1905.
Hon. William T.. Clopton, Judge Of the
s Corporation Court, Manchester, Va:
Dear Strive are in due receipt OF your
letter dated June Sd, and have given the
Same very careful consideration. You say
you can see nofreason why this general
rule should be altered In this case, unless
good cause can be shown to me- which
has not yet been done.
We are really att loss to know what rea-
son or facts we Fcan give in addition to
those contained In our letter OF June 1sts
as to why this rule should be altered.
We have statedsand now repeat that we
wish to have several physicians Of the
highest standing In the profession
examine our client, with view to making
witnesses OF them. we believe this course
will prove of material advantage ato our.
clients. ~ is
We object to this examination In the
presence OF the jail physician for the very
apparent rea SON. that heawould feel free
to report all that was said by our client
to the. Commonwealth's attorney. We can
magazine no other reason for his being
+present.rIt sou Wish affldavits In support
OF what we say. orotor the high standing
OF these physicians, we vii be happy to.
furnish the same. E Ii ia
We have already lost very valuable time.
in the preparation Of our defense and
would again ask that this order be changed
and would ask that this order, be changed
and q what we have said willinot produce
the result that then some intlnlaticn may
fbe given us as to what will be considered
+ good cause for so doing.
Very respectfully, 3
(slgned) II. M. SMITH, JR..
r. H. WELLS.
The Final Rejoinder.
Judge Clopton sent his final answer TO
the requets in the following letter:
Manchester, June II.
4 H. M. Smith, Jr., and E. II. Wells. ESQ,
Counsel for Estelle Smith:
s5t Gentlemen.-Yo note Of June 18th
has received careful consideration. Your
request is unusual. It is made by statute
unlawful for any person@other than tho
officers OF the law In charge OF the pris-g
&oners; the counsel OF the prisoners or
such other persons as may be authorized A
by the court In whose custody said pris-
Goners may be, to hold any communication
4 by word, sign or writing with prisoners
confined In any jail / OF this Common
wealth. except In the presence of the
sheriff or his deputies or Of the jailer
regularly in charge Of prisoners. Code
NO. s9S. AZ. X s. 4. fs =.
In nelthcr Of your communications to
me have you assigned any grounds for
the communications by physicians asked
for with Jour client Esterle Smith or the
object you have In view as Der COUNSEL!
This leaves me unable properly to con-
slider your requests. IT you will indicate to
me the purposes and objects of the ex-
an7inations you ask for. ! will give the
matter Immediate attention.
Very truly yours,
* W. A., CLoPTCN.
Examined BY Experts. i
There seems to be every reason to
believe that the defense will make stren-s
uous efforts to have Mrs. Smith exam
ined by expert medical men and that