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

page 81 of the record, delivered him
self as follows:
@. Have you discussed this case
with your family?
y. have talked with my people
abou, it.
@. And they have expressed opin-
ions?
y. Yes, sir
.. Have you?
4. Yes, sir. l have.
.. And you have heard members
of your family express opinions?
a. Yes. sir.
q. From the facts az you read them
in the paper?
a. From the facts as we read them
in the paper.
g. II che same facts should de-
velop In this courtroom as you have
read in the paper. your mind would
be made up wouldn't 1t?
y. OF course, I would decide il the
same
Again to the same effect is the Juror
Hancock, Exception No Z, page Sc OF
the record:
Q. Have you read the newspaper
accounts OF this affair:
y. Yes, sir. some of them
Mr. Hnncocix's Answers.
-. Mr.. Hancock, have those ac.
counts caused you 10 form any opinion
as to whether or not this man is guilty
of this charge?
A. Well 1 think they have had some
weight with me-
u. MIR. Hancock do you think thut
YOU could get rid of them Gmpres
sions) SO completely that you would
be able 10 try this man with the same
fairness and impartiaiity with which
you could try him ii you had never
read those newspaper accounts?
y. don't think l could.
Page 3s
Q. If the evidence was the same or
substantially the same with what you
read in the papers your opinion would
remain the same and be confirmed
would 1t?
y, Yes, sir.
q Isl Have ave you talked this matter
ovcro
\. Yes. sir.
q Have you expressed your opin-
ion:
~ We'll think have
g. More than once"
y. | expect have; have talked Il
good deal about it.
Before the jurors mind had reached
any such conclusion as is here set
out. was not the prisoner entitled to
have each individual juror instructed
that "circumstantial evidence must
always be scanned with great eau
ton; that each link In the chain OF
circumstantial evidence must be cs-
taDlishtG" 'Ee.'tAi'"" UAa9f,pS hIG,,,A0nh;.
that each and all the facts should not
only be consistent with the prisoners
guilt, but they must be inconsistent
with any other rational conclusion. or
reasonable hypothesis OF innocence?
After an opinion formed. expressed
and discussed. of what avail are the
instructions of The court relative to
circumstantial evidence: to what profit
IS the argument OF COUNSEL
v.
The eighth bill OF exceptions relates
To the admissibility OF evidence Of a
statement made by the defendant at
the coroner's inquest. 1t shows that
the defendant had been examined as d
witness for the Commonwealth at tho
inquest and whilst no was still in at
tendance he made statement identi-
Tying letter written to Bculah Bin
ford as his letter. and this evidence
OF what he tLcn said during the in
quest was allowed to be introduced by
the Commonwealth to identify tho
letter. mat this letter, which is as
follows:
III. c. Beattie. ll2l-2S-25 Hun street,
"Beattic Block,
Manchester. Va. --- 800.
Dear Kid.-Pay this ten on the fur
niturc and make him give you an item
lied BILL and what you must pny each
week. I forgot to tell you, don't you
get Erma to call me any more. Some
one will get wise. Well, be good.
With oceans of love trimming with
kisses Yours, HON"
was material and DANA ging evidence
Will hardly be questioned, and. IL ques-
toned. cannot be successfully main
tanned.
The law provided (see LIST Vol. Pol
lard's Code. section 3oOD as follows:
I'm criminal prosecution, other
than for perjury, or in an action on
a penal statute, evidence shall not be
given against the accused of any state
mcnt made by him as Il witness upon
a legal examination. unless such state
ment was made when examined as a
witness nm his own behalf
Examined az Witness.
That this evidence was embraced III
and protected by this section Is insist
cd by the defendant. 1t Is true that
he had been examined as a witness. but
he was still in attendance on the in
guest which was not concluded His