The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-11-14

Ill CARTER.
statement. which was under consider
alton. was injected In the midst OF the
examination OF another witness. 1t
was made under the sanction Of the
oath administered to him when he
was sworn at the instance of the Com
monwealth to tell the truth and the
whole truth. Ii ne had made this
statement falsely and corruptly. he
could have been punished for perjury.
1t would be narrow and unreason-
ably restricted construction which
would confine the scope and protection
OF this statut' just referred to to
statements made by a witness whilst
he was being questioned b. the officers
of the Commonwealth and exclude it's
application to statements made by tho
same witness. affecting the same mat
ter of inquiry. during the same trial
The object and purpose OF this statute
was, by removing the fear OF the after
use of his evidence against him, to
| encourage and protect tho witness SO
as TO Induce him to make US full a
statement as he could under the as
surancc that II could not afterwards
be used against him. II should be
libertlly construed, and we insist is
broad enough. even without invoking
such construction. to cover and pro-
tcct a statement made as this one was
Authorship of Letter.
IL is manifest from the record show
, ing the evidence in this case that the
Commonwealth was trying 10 get evi-
dence TO the authorship of this
letter In dispute without putting Beu-
lah Binford OH the stand, and that the
defendants counsel were trying to
force them to put her Oh the stand Tor
, this purpose. b. the ruling of the
court on this point not only was this
letter Identified as Il letter written by
| the defendant. but the Commonwealth.
which had kept the Binford woman
locked up in jail as Its witness for
weeks was able to dispense with her
as witness altogether. Your petit
toner submits that the construction of
the statute raised In this bill OF ex-
ceptions is new question. never de-
! clded in this State nor. b far as he
is Informed, in any other State, and
one Of Importance, not only Ia this
case. but for the future guidance OF
the courts in Virginia. He insists that
has rights In the premises We're in
! jured and Injustice done him by the in
depreciation and construction put on
the same by the court below
The same exception was made to
the same statements made BY witness
Tor the Commonwealth Schercr. (Scc
tenth bin of cxpcctions, page 49,
1t is true that the accused when on
| the stand admitted writing the letter
! in question. but owing to the ruling
| OF the court Bculah Binford was not
called By the Commonwealth as a wit
ness, and there would have been no
| necessity for the petitioners going on
the stand in his own behalf, il this
letter had been kept out of the owl
:jnnc9. "au' --aHiGi's. SN yPeYiy5 BIN,
ford which would have been the case,
! but for this ruling of the court. Its
introduction changed the whole course
+, of the trial. and II II should have been
excluded. it's introduction by proving
statements Of the accused made at the
J coroncr's inquest was a vital error.
VI.
| The point raised i'll defendants
ninth exception relates to the relcv-
ancy and admissibility of the evil
| dence under the indictment.
| The indictment charges that the
wounds. which caused the death OF
| the dccedcnt, were wounds inflicted or
the ace. The language is: lin and
upon the face of her. the said Louise
| Wexford Beattic," page A OF the re
| cord.
1t is manifest that this language
| charges death to have been caused by
! wounds on and injuries to the Taco
( of decedcnt. That being the case. all
evidence in the case showing, or tend
ing TO show, death from the shot hav'
| ing penetrated her skull and brain
should have been excluded. 1t is pos
| sible that u wound in or on the face
| might have caused death. Erysip elias
or blood poisoning might have result
| ed; but not only is there nothing In
! the record to show that death result
ed In this case from an injury to de-
| cedent's face, but even had there been
| Commonwealth to have relied on evi-
dence OF death from injuries INFECT
| ed on her skull and brain. as the court
allowed II to do, unless the indictment
| had so charged.
| That the proof must correspond
with tho charge in the Indictment is
shown by the case of Burress VS.. Com
J monwealth, 20 Graf. 93i, "thc
Indictment was for forging an orde,
for SAFES. and that the order was fol
s47.23. This was variance which en-.
titled the accused TO acquittal on thai
Indictment"
In the case of Johnson VS.. Common
wealth. - Graf. 555, the indictmen
charged larceny of United State.
Treasury notes" The certificate of
money" etc. The court held. the
facts certified do not sustain the YER
dict
3 Surely the difference between tn,