The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-03-23


s 4All# amended petl ton for O. 5writ tsS &c 4,
error and superseded In tho "a case 80 III
John Wright VS. tile Cominonwea NV az 81
filed In the Supreme Court of Appeals aoE 81
Virginia yesterday by Il ttorney James gE.s&
Clements, OF lexandria county. counsel ~
fort man Snow@under sen ntence Of death
for criminal Sassa autt. Che court has the
peti ton under CON Iteration, and In View
OF 4 the expressions "a Of J the judges, 81 bot tbs
very strong dissenting opinions, and iii AZ
view ofE the further fact that the Sanendcdsss
petition Is a very III uch ADLER pres santa ssS
ton 81 the case than has been formal yR
given to it. there Isl reason to Bho pc tn atsH
the supreme tribunal # may reverse the ii
Judgment of the trial " court and remand
the case. nj ss$s
8 Mr. Clements has asso ctnteS witt hirnSs
In representing the p risoner IN this &ap-Ns
peal, II on. w illiam p. Cardw III Speak rs;
5of tho HOUSE OF 81 Del elegates soi Vt MIA
an al 1aWyeT OF great q g bil tty
ss3i5 VVhat Court SSaid. s!H
the mai a1ority OPT inionH he court
81 was stat ted tha tg no exeept wa
&cept the refusal Of N the court to IN ses;
aside tho verdict as contrary to- Snniis
evidence and its oVerruling he mo ton
IN arrest of$ udgment al The nppellatasN
court, therefore. could not cons any
other assignment Of error.
II was claimed tina the Verde ctzyTassSR NJ
III 81 sustained BY the BeVide sT lsi t,ss
because the n corpus ~ d elicit wa 81 nota
proved :#S Sc contl. IN Is ecause the q ccuaeds
was lot Identified as the pa rtya%S orl-sss
5niitting 1.-THE VI d ffense ;3# third, that tho
evidence shows tina t the nc used Scon onltls8
not have been Epresen t. when the cr1maS
was commit ted. III ic ma ority pilnls.s
lon holds that & the verd ictf s. hould dknotHH
be reversed la "a case like this. unlesas
lit finds that the eYid dence, con sidaredSs
as $ons demurrer53to# #evi dence, ts lain
sly insufficient to warrant t he nndingIS
Sof the iurY and & that 1t Will Il not be-
Justified In granting a new trlal. ia eyenSs
5if its members should th lin kfs tn atMiks
they had been on Il he# jury tn eyj# nlightS
have found q d ffercnt .verd let. " EgiS
tsS Tho court sustained Its Z. REFUSAL t0S
8perpetrationg CT IL the 3# crime a and E4SS SStha8
identity Of the accused N as 866t he spers
petra tor were post ively an q b dir
Testified to,
Denial BY Attorney. 5;sIS Ssgs
II n the petition for a ehearin gSi Il llS
attorney for the prisoner post ittyalHs
denies tina t ho failed Sst to 4 note$S excepss
itions to- the ruling g Of the tidal court
|relntiYe to the admission OF impropeEs
Testimony, and Bemphat lcall " de claran
that hc noted except lons repeatellYsas
and 2 finally, exnspera ted n. hey dsfs ems
durance at the arbitrary action ot 4 the
court In overruling these Saxcept ptiona,.S
picked M his a hat and threatened toS
leave I hes 4 room. LA ter, recalling that
the prisoner wopl d thus bes loft WHOM
unprotected, he recon sidered and fought
the case to tho end ss5s IL sfS
Judges Cardwell and Whittle ,uniteds
| in dissenting opinions taking }35 strong m
ground against the action Of tteirs
lfollow-judgos I'd In affirming tho judE y
ment Of the trial court t, In tho course
of his opinion. Judge \ Cardwell8 fsaidl
| that the evidence ii Of tho pros oseeutlon
as5sto the perpetration OF the u crime
disc loses fac ts and circulns stances NV hichs
are sutti icicnt to crea te grave doubtain
| tho mind of n any one ( freed \ from tho
| bias and prejudice which are I'm han
Iplly ana too often n controlli AZ ill.
| iluence upon iurles when dea IN g with
.the heinous and shocking crime 81
(which the .prlsop perS:was q ccuset, q III iKaIas
CardWell GO cludes that the proof lai
wanting to sustain VI the 8#yerdlc Il hut;
that the natural horrors OF this par ~
|tlcular crilnes ~ q iYerted sg tho attention.
OF the Jury from Q prop con 81 ton
Of the evidence. ". Ss s'Es,ssi
Significant = Languag Z
but stronger even than the ON pressS
sion Of lpdge t'ardwell Is that ofs
Judge NYhittle, one OF tho ablest ju.I
lrists and purest men in Virginia II who,
besides concGrring i In Judge Cara-il
vel Us opinion, q ddcd In n 8 lpp lelnentay
atement & the following slgni iiaansl
langua go: s g s iSfsl
where the supreme Court 4. S
\ eonvinced bya inspeattoR oR ths y
VIZ record that the SirreEnlarityi II thAs Il
\ trial E0f he cAAe In the Vital nsN I. 9sss
" ter OF admitting evidence reAAersfS fSa
/ At Il plarally eertuin that In t tkelE3 Rs R
Apding the Jury Wa,s nlateztaal WI
i Influenced by incn nInpet snt eSideAce,g
M Al tllauEh admitted WithVut 0lslec, gSi
38s ton Ia condition w hlch nAlspHts,s ssss
bly, prevailed In this instance lsB Siss