The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-11-14
nplete Text Of Henry Beattie's Petition for Appea

Traction Company vs.. GULL, io7 Va,
100, took occasion again to refer TO
such arguments of counsel In a civil
case and whilst not passing on their
eject. because of the fact that there
mad to be new trial on other
grounds. sounded second warning
tho bar of this State to refrain from
such Incorporate nd ill-advised ora
lions.
The Supreme Court of the United
states said in the case OF Graves VS.
United States in 100 U. s.. page 10
While we do not wish to be under
stood as holding that comments by
the district attorney upon the fact,
not In evidence, or statements mad,
having no connection with the ease
or exaggerated expressions such az
counsel in the heat OF trial are prone
to indulge in. will necessarily yitiut,
verdict, IL NOT OBJECTED 70
capitals ours), yet when the attention
of the court Is called to them specially
and objection is made, II is It's duty
to Interfere and put stop to them
If they are likely TO be prejudical to
the accused"
That the comments" OF the counsel
VINO closed tho case Ut bar for tho
Commonwealth. which were objected to
were upon facts not in evidence"
and were Exaggerated expressions"
accused and that the court by reius-
ing To take any notice OF defendants
Objection. except to override IL, com
mitted error Is. he submits. clear. In
the case in which the above language
was used ny the Supreme Court tho
verdict and Judgment of the court be-
low were set aside on the ground that
snch language should not have been
allowed to DC used before, or consid-
cred by, the jury.
In los y. y. 5i2, People VS. Fielding.
the court said: The prosecuting, al
torney in criminal case should put
himself under proper restraint and
should not in his remarks to the Jury
so beyond the evidence or the bounds
of reasonable moderation"
where conviction has followed
Improper and dangerous appeals to the
prejudice OF jurors BY the district
attorney and the strong probabilities
are that such errors affected the re-
suit. the rule should be enforced.
which requires u reversal whenever
tho error is raised by q proper ex-
ception."
Counsel for the Commonwealth had
In this case. in which the prisoner was
accused of larceny of public funds.
drawn graphic picture Of the suffer
payers etc The court set aside the
verdict.
Reference to ,Iurderers.
The court, in Its opinion. on page
ot7. says: Statements made By coun-
sci outside OF the evidence and Htro-
ject TO objections, which strongly tend
TO arouse sympathy. prejudice and re.
sentiment in the minds OF the jury, re.
quirc new trial. even IL the court
charge that they have nothing TO do
with the case and must be disregard-
ed"
Surely, II will not be denied that the
reference TO the three murdcrcrs, who
had been hung, and the statement
mnde by the special counsel for the
state In the ease ut bar, that the dan
ger to NIL human life (includinE, of
course, the lives OF the Jurors them
sclNesb would be ipcreuscd by the nc
quittnl Of the accused, WINS objection
able both on the ground that II wnn
commenting ON facts, which had not
been proved, and which could not have
been proved, which "Wcrc outside of
the evidence" but (which niso strong
~ tended to urouhc symputhy, prcju-
dice and resentment In the minds of
the jury H. indeed, IL did not tend
to arouse fcnr. The court says that
this rule applies even TO civil cases ana
intimatcs strongly that the rule in
criminal cases should be more strictly
enforced. Language. which might be
permitted to counsel in summing up
in civil action. cannot with pro-
priety be used by public prosecutor
(page SAD.
The court also repeats with approval
remark Of Judge Earl in another
case, the district attorney should
put himself under proper restraint and
should not in his remarks in the hear
ing OF the jury go beyond the evil
dencc or the bounds OF a reasonable
moderation" That the language com
Dluinel of here was liable 10 both oh
tectlons Is apparent.
LanEunge Applicable.
The New York court, referring to
former decisions. which had dealt with
this matter. says on page 5iS: las The
adnon1tion OF this court has not
proved sufficient to prevent improper
and dangerous appeals to the prcJu-
dice Of Jurors. II has become neces-
sary. az we think, to rigidly enforce
the general rule OF this and many
other states that requires a reversal.
whenever the error Is raised 10y
proper exception"
This language is especially appli-
cable TO the situation in Virginia ard
to this case; our Supreme Court of
Appeals having, In certainly the two
'GAsGS' ere. N.s8Me,.,S' ,tcSI. <gauG.oi tt,v
Oar against such Incorporate and i'm
proper bursts of lurid rhetoric as was
here INDUCED In
The New York court in this decision
cited decisions from Texas. New
Hampshire. wisconsin. North Carolina,
Vermont, Indiana. Iowa and Florida.
which fully sustained Its decision and
the principles therein laid down.
in the case of People vs.. Wolf, 1873
~ Y, page AGA. decided in 1905, the
court held that improper remarks
made by the counsel for prosecution
in the OPENING statement Capitals
petitioner's) were ground for now
trial In criminal case. the syllabus
stating. crimes not charged in the
indictment committed by other parties,
who are not indicted or connected
with the defendant in any way, arc
not material or competent for any pur-