The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1908-02-26

tho sofa, gathered very heavy chair.
raised 1t UP with an oath and said he
would kill Jordan. Jordan imme-
diately drew his pistol and fired. and
Adams was killed. Upon the part Of
tho Commonwealth there was proof
to show that. instead Of Jordan en-
tcring the door, he had steathily. gone
upon the porch: and upon each side OF
the door there. were glass panels. one
Of when was broken, and that he had
deliberately placed his pistol through
the opening IN the glass and fired the
shot hot, which killed A ,Id son,rnonwo.,tn
insisted that Jordan was guilty OF n,ur-
der in the first degree and conte nd
cd for that alone. while the attorney
uncontradicted evidence of Jordan ard
Nlrs. Adams. that It was lear case
OF self-defense. The jury brought In
a verdict of murder In the second de-
n.ent N the .penitentiary. at twelve
years. Counsel for the defense moved
the court to set aside the verdict OF
the jury and grant new trial Judge
Jordan could not after the verdict OF
the jury. be found guilty off raurdar
in the first degree. and as the attor-
rey for the Commonwealth stated that
testimony, Judge Rhea being of opin--
ion that nothing but expense. could
result from another trial. discharged
the prisoner.
The evidence shows that Jordun WAS
poor man: that his friends ha' to
raise the money to pay his. counsel:
that Judge Rhea never saw him until
and there was not a scintilla OF evil
dence even tending to prove that Judge
Khea had any indicement or motive
except the proper discharge of his duty
me-, L.
II lie was a Knight of Pythias. He
answered. No. and 1T was not proved
that Jordan belonged to that honorable
order. and this effort to establish mo-
tive utterly failed.
Cases like this rarely occur. but they
do some times. and Judge Rhea's ac
ton is not without precedent In the
case case OF Toibert against the State, 119
pears. The theory of the state was
that the accused was guilty OF muir
der; his defense was that the homicide
was 5ustifiable. After a close exami-
to show. or from which the jury could
legitimately infer. that the homicide
vas voluntary manslaughter. The re-
cord shows that the accused was guilty
was, therefore. error to give In charge
lhe laws relating to voluntary man
slaughter. and a verdict finding the
accused accused, guilty OF that offense was
''''''N'H ,N lociIs 10 support II. ana a
new trial should have been granted on
these grounds"
To the same effect Is the case of the
state stat. VS.; MCKINNEY. 111th N. G.. ss4.
C.. 512; State We. Gov. 10th n. c., 5o3;
State vs. Jones. ODD y. c., Sill.
Two similar cases have been decided
In virginia. one in Shenandoah county
and pure Judges. But. admitting for
the sake of argument that the Jor-
dan. case Is remarkable. there is no
evidence of impure motive or improp-
Rhea was wrong in his decision. ii
does not unfit him for place on the
State Corporation Commission. More
tran one-half OF the cases going to
circuit and corporations courts. which
are considered by that court. are re-
versed; but this does not. and ought
not to. affect the standing or charac-
that three wears after that decision.
the bar of Bristol unanimously petit
toned Judge Rhea not to resign his
Court; thus expressing. their entire
confidence In his integrity and ability.
, Scott County Ballot.
ph 18th. I &C, eharge that Judge
pated in the PREPARATION of what
is known as the famous Scott coun-
ty ballot copv OF which IS at
taei,ed hereto: the said ballot was
used IN the congressional election
~ 1900 through Judge Rhea's in
fluence. and with his knowledge.
consent and anproval and that he
and his friends made efforts to
have a like form of ticket used
In other counties in the district in
said election
Respectfully submitted
II. c. NOEL"
While this is not the next charge
offered by Senator Noel
II Is the next in point of time. and
inasmnch as 1t was used in the election
nj 1900. ii will be considered before
the charges made in reference to the
election of 1902
An examination IF this ballot will
disclose that 1t had on it the names
Vice President. four comnlete sets of
electors. one with electors at large
hnt no district electors and one with
all the electors eycent from three dis
tricts. making. with the candidates for
Congress- in the Ninth District. seven
tv-six names. Those names had tn 60
on every ticket voted In that district
and the only objection which can be
found to the famous Scott county hal
lot is in its arrangement. Under any
circumstances the ticket was obliged
to he long and difficult to vnte. but
with no change in the size of the tvpe
and no sDacine between the different
and congressional candi-
dates. the ticket was complicated and
difficult to vote. and does not commend
itself as q form of ballot. The cues
ton as 70 whether Judge Rhea bed
anvthine to do with this ballot was
thorouEhlv tried in the contested cleo
ton which occurred between Judge
Rhea and General Walker IN 1900, and
upon which the committee of Congress
passed in the following words:
Action by Congress-.
The Virginia election law pro-
vdes that the official ballot shall
be white paper ticket contain
ing the names of the persons who
have complied with the provisions
of that act. and the titles of the
offices for which they. are candi-
dates, printed in plain Roman
type. not smaller than that known
as plea. While the letter of the
statute may have been complied
with. several Of the ballots. no.
tably that in Scott county, If legal,
were very unfair. On these bal
lots were the names of six candi-.
dates for President and Vice-Pres
dent. the names of the electors for
each. and their residences, and the
names of the contestant and con-
testee. with the titles of the offices
for which they We're candidates.
No regard for order was observed
In the form of the ballot or the
arrangement of that matter, and
the names of the congressional
candidates especially appear in