The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-03-15

Jury Influenced by Incompetent
Evidence, But No Objection
Was Made.

Yesterday was opinion day In the SUI
preme Court OF Appeals of Virginia, and
1t appears to have been reversal day also.
OF the twenty-one cases In which opin-
Ions were handed down the lower courts
were reversed In thirteen and sustained In
eight. Two of the most important cases
decided were those OF Thomas VS.. tho
Commonwealth. involving life and death,
In which the Circuit Court OF Alexandria
was affirmed by Il divided court. two of
tho five appellate judges dissenting from
the majority opinion, ana the case Of
the Commonwealth VS.. Trustees Of the
Hampton Agricultural and Normal In
stitute. involving the question of the LA
ability of the property of the institute
to taxation. and tho construction of the
Constitution of the State. The Circuit
Court OF Elizabeth City county was at
firmed In part. but the order Of the trial
court was amended and the cause re-
manded in part.
The higher court reversed the Circuit
courts of York county and OF Charles
City county in one case from each court,
Judge ID. Gardiner Tyler presiding over
both courts. The Circuit Court OF tho
city OF Richmond was reversed in two
cases, and the Chancery Court OF the
city OF Richmond and the Law and
Chancery, Court of the city OF Norfolk IN
one case each. Judge Grimsley, of the
Ninth Circuit. was reversed in two cases.
and Judge Woods, of the Corporation
Judge Portlock, OF First Circuit.
Judge Barksdale, OF the Sixth Circuit.
and the judge of the Seventh Circuit
IN one case. Judge Blackstone, of tho
Eleventh. Circuit. was affirmed in two
cases, though In one case the decree
OF the court was amended.
New Trial Denied.
In the case OF Joseph Thomas alias
John Wright, VS.. the Commonwealth,
Judge buchanan wrote the majority
opinion OF the court, which was con-
Cured in by Judges Keith and Harri-
son, and Judge Cardwell wrote dis
senting opinion. in which Judge Whit
tie concurs. The appellant in tho case
was convicted of criminal assault upon
Miss Risley, and was given the en-
treme penalty for the crime.
The majority opinion reviews brief
ly the evidence in the case. 1t appears
that Miss Risley, accompanied by For
rest Gooding, was returning from
Luna Park. near Alexandria. when the
alleged assault occurred. about $50
p. NJ. on Sunday, September o. 1906.
The testimony of Cooling was that
a negro suddenly arose from beside
[
revolver and club, told Gooding he
was going to kill him, and did strike
him with a club Gooding ran toward
the park for help, and while he gone
1T Is claimed. Miss Rsley was seized
by the negro and assaulted the assail-
ant threatening to kill her If she
screamed Or ran.
| Wright was arrested for another Of
| Tense, but was subsequently identified
| by the young WOMAN MS her nssailant
being picked from five or six other
negroes. Several witnesses, however,
testified that Miss Risley at first point
ed out another man as her assailant.
| Wright, the accused claimed an nlibl,
alleging that he was driving a horse
and buggy for a livery firm ut the
hour named. and adduced testimony
partially sustaining his alibi.
| At the trial the prisoner had no at
torney, and the court assigned counsel
to defend him. His counsel, however
| noting no exceptions to the admissl-
bility of testimony afterwards alleged
| to be irrelevant and improper No OK
ception was noted to any rulings of
| the court. except the refusal Of the
court to set aside the verdict as con-
trary to law and evidence, and its
overruling the motion In arrest of
Judgment. The appellate court, there
| fore, could not consider any other
| assignment of error. 1t was claimed
| that the verdict was not sustained by
tho evidence: First. because the corpus
deficit was not proved; second because
the accused was not Identified as tho
party committing the offence; third,
that the evidence shows that the 40
cuseS could not have been present
when the crime was committed Tho
majority opinion holds that the verdict
should not be reversed in a case like
this unless 1t finds that the evidence.
considered as on demurrer to evil
dencc, Is plainly insufficient to war
rant the finding of tho jury; and TINT
1t VIII not be justified In granting
new trial, even IL it's members should
think that if they had been on the
| jury they might have found a differ
ent verdict. The court sustains its re-
fusal TO order new trial by sayinr
that the perpetratlon of tile crime and
the identity of tho accused as tho
perpetrator were positively and d.
rectly testified to-.
II Is further stated that the guilt of
the accused Is purely a question OF fact.
and that II the witnesses for tho Com
monWealth were worthy of credencc, OF
| "t''h VIC JURORS were the exclusive
judges, there can be no question that the
verdict IS neither contrary To the evidence
nor without evidence to support it.
Dissenting Opinions.
Judge cardwell Giles a dissenting opln-
lon. In which Judge White concurs.
They state therein that tho prisoner be-
Ing without means to employ counsel, two
attorneys We're assigned To defend him.
and that during the trial evidence in re-
buttll wholly irrelevant, and of the
most damaging character to the prisoner,
was introduced by tho prosecution and
admitted by the court, to which no en-
ceptions were noted by counsel. Judge
Cardwel holds that the evidence of tho
prosecution as to tho preparation Of
the crime, discloses facts and clrcum-
stances which are sufficient to create
grave doubt In the mind OF any one freed
from the bias and prejudice which ara
unhappily and too often u controlling In
fluence upon juries when dealing with
the helnoua and shocking crime OF
which the prisoner was accused Judge
| Inf