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


dencc of tho cause of death Ia more
serious than 1t was in either of the
above cited cases. Not only should
the evidence objected to In this bill
OF exceptions have been excluded, but
under the decisions of this court above
referred to the verdict complained of
III the seventeenth bill of exceptions
should have been set aside as contrary
TO- ana unsupported by. the law and
the evidence.
The eleventh bill OF exceptions,
pages 40 and iG Of the record. shows
that the Commonwealth was allowed
against the objection OF petitioner. to
prove by Mrs. Owens, the mother OF
the deccdent. that whilst her daughter
inc decedent. had on several coca.
sions before the night she was killed
| invited her in the presence Of the petit
toner to go riding with them. that
I she was not Invited that night by
| either petitioner or her daughter to
GO This, he submits was error, the
| evidence was utterly irrcvelant and
improper. unless II was a suspicious
circumstance. This it could not, un.
der the circumstances, have been, and
tho court by allowing IL to be intro
duccd i'll evidence over the objection
OF the petitioner must have produced
the impression on the jury, that in its
Che COURTS opinion II was Il circum-
stance. which they had the right to
view with suspicion.
VIII.
The question, raised in ana BY bill
OF exceptions No. IL. which viii be
ioun. from page IL to page 81 In the
record, whether the statement OF the
dccedent TO the witness AS to the OK
hibit shown the witness that the:
were the exhibit OF the accused, page
90 and whether her acts in so show
ING The condition OF the exhibit al,
OF which took place In the absence of
the accused, were legal evidence. That
| this statement of what the dccedent
! was said to have told the witness was
! hearsaE. and that the exhibition OF
the rawcrs of the accused as well az
the conduct OF deccdent, not In the
! presence OF the accused. were res In
! ter alios acta," Is, we submit the con-
| clusion OF the law, and the error here
committed by the court below should
be corrected by reversal OF the judg-
ment OF the court below.
| 1t is. your petitioner is advised,
needless to cite authorities on the
! point in this bill OF exceptions. II the
! facts, as there set out, show that the
| testimony is liable TO the objections
stated the court below committed err
| ror.
| IN.
| The fifteenth bill OF exceptions page
! 81 OF record, sets out certain language
used by the special counsel FOR the
Commonwealth in his closing speech.
| which was duly excepted to and made
a part of the record which we submi,
was highly improper and prcjudicial
| TO the defendant.
| In the case OF Lynchburg Traction
| Company VIZ. Gull. l07 Va. 100. the
I language was the Jury should be
/ liberal IN their verdict in favor of
plaintiff, because II they found u
small verdict the court could not In
crease the amount. but II they found q
| large verdict the court could reduce IL
to what the court thought was Il pro-
per amount" The court said, las the
case has to so back for another trial,
we will merely observe that IL would
be far better If counsel would content
themselves with asking a verdict at
the hands OF the jury based upon the
law and evidence. without suggestions,
| which serve to put in peril an other
| wise righteous verdict"
| This court in the case OF Southern
| Railw1y Company VS.. Simmons, los
! va. co.,. in commenting upon Ian
| GuaSc used In q civil case, where the
| question at issue was merely pecuniary
and where the expressions condemned
were far less Objectionable and less
| calculated to excite and inName the
minds of the jury than what this
Dill OF exceptions shows were used In
the present case, says. such a line
! OF argument, IL proper objections he
| made TO 1t at the proper time and tho
trial court fails to take pr per steps
to correct It's Ill tendencies, will con-
stitute sufficient ground fer revers-
ing a Judgment rendered upon YER
dict thus obtained"
The language thus spoken OF By this
court was as follows: Among other
things 1t was stated that counsel had
expressed the fear that the railroad
employees who had testified against
the company would lose their
places, although there was no evidenc c
on this point; that counsel for the
railroad company rode in private and
palace cars when they came to court
! although there WAS no evidence on
this point; that the mind could no,
grasp the extent of the resources and
possessions OF the Southern Railwa,
/ GS8hip&ifgyt W.hiG htl..rgt.lh.iu.HI ,,..lMr,u
poor man with nobody but his wife
and child, and with no enc to help
him but his wife; that the treasury OF
+; the railway company was sc exhaust.
less that 1t would hardly feel the loss
of $4,000, the amount claimed in the
declaration, and that in estimating
damages they should take into con-
sideration the fact that exceptions had
been taken by the defendant. and tina,
it had been stated that if the verdict
was against it, 1t would appeal"
4 Wendcnburg'n APostrophe.
The language In the present case is,
%. They tell you TO let him go
tree. Let him go free: tell You that
every unpunished murder takes n,vny
something from the security of every
Innn's life. You let this mnn go free
and you will take nwny something
from the security OF every ono of our
lives. Every unpublished murder of a
wife takes away something from the
security of every woman's life and
adds terror to our homes. You let thi.
man go free and j say to the State OF
YIrelnia. a ne I'm.