The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-11-06

the testimony Of II. G. 6ifiner, an At.
jtofney Of Pulaski City. who testi.
tisd n TO the messages sent by Judge
Massie 10 his brother, and also GER
tain statements made BY him when hs
was dying, 10 the effect that he died
doing his duty. These statements did
mot relate who killed him, or how he
came to his death. 1t was claimed
/ by the defendant that they merely
tended to tnflame the minds OF the
jury. and did not throw ans light on
the case. This contention was over
ruled and the statements were adj
mitted,
Bill Of exceptions, No. Is, relates to
the evidence as to certain transact
tons that took place In the absence
Of Claude Allen, to which he excepted.
No. IL In the same.
New Questions in Law.
| Bills OF exceptions. Nos. Is. 1s and
II, set forth the evidence about which
the battle ragged most fierceiy, name
ly. as to whether or not threats or
statements of Floyd Allen, made some
months before the shooting and up to
a few days before the shooting, were
] admissible against Claude.
During the time that most OF these
statements were made, Claude was not
in Carroll county, but was out OF the
State at college. The court admitted
| them. on the theory that they were
proper to show the motives of Floyd
Allen. white the defendant claimed
that the motives OF Floyd Allen could
have no bearing upon his case
In short. that he was to be tried
upon his own motives, and not those
NJ any other man. This is a brand
new question in Virginia. and one in
which many lawyers look to the de-
cfsion Of the Court OF Appeals with
interest.
Question Of Date Of Plot.
Judge Staples. in the October num-
Der OF the Virginia Law Register, has
published an extended opinion setting
forth the reasons OF the court for the
admission Of this evidence, while
counsel for the defendants have, in
their petition to the Court OF Appeals
for writ of error, collected quite an
array Of authority on the other side.
Bill OF exception. No. IS. Is as to
the testimony OF some persons the
day preceding the shooting, in the
absence Of Claude Allen.
Bill OF exceptions. No. 10, involves
the purely technical question of law
as TO whether or not a witness can
corroborHte himself by stating what
he has told someone previous to the
trial
Bin OF exceptions, No. 20, is as to
the testimony Of two witnesses as to
an occurrence between Claude and
Floyd Allen on the afternoon OF the
shooting. 1t was claimed that this
was not admissible, because the indict-
ment alleged that the conspiracy took
place on the 14th.
Gun to XIII FIoyd Allen.
Bill OF exceptions, No. Fl. is as to
the refusal OF the court to permit two
witnesses, Samuel Weddell and C. c.
Webb, who had testified against the
defendant. to be cross-examined as to
whether or not they were friendly
| with Dexter Eoad. '575 Fz55' ~
The witness, Weddell, testified that
he WAS on friendly terms with Floyd
Allen. but 1t was brought out that
he had bought a gun for Dexter Goal
to kill Floyd Allen with.
1t was further said TO be shown
that this witness worked for Dexter
Goad az Republican worker In the
| elections. This evidence was, how
| ever. excluded. and Is set out in these
bills of exceptions.
| Bill OF exceptions. No. %, Is as to
/ the refusal of the court to permit
/ Newton Bevell to be contradicted on
matter which tho court held to be
| imrnaterial. t-
\ ArhHSG11Pt OF ES10enCe.
| BIZ No. ~ sets out matter that took
| place In the evidence of Claude Allen.
to which he excepted
Bill No. rs is as to the question of
| whether or not counsel should have
been permitted to use a transcript OF
the evidence taken In the Floyd Allen
| case in asking witnesses to corroborate
| or contradict them.
| No. 81 Is as to the same questions
as some OF the previous bills, as was
| No. IS.
No. 20 was as to the court allow
ing the Commonwealth to ask Floyd
Allen and require him to testify as to
| what Foster. had said about him
Floyd Allenl in the trial at Hills
| vile.
Nos. 50 and 81 are ,as to the reia-
ton OF Floyd Allen with certain wit
/ nesses who testified
| Shot by MopnshinerS.
NO. was az to the refusal Of the
| court to permit Floyd Allen to relate
the following incident: One SID
Towe had testified against Allen. 1t
seemed that some years ago revenue
officers were raiding In the neighbour
hood of Floyd Aliens home, among
whom was Samson Worreli. a law
YER Of Biuefield, w. Va, who was at
that time deputy collector
"o1TNH WIS bHut by the moon
sinners, among whom was Sidney
Towe- One of the men at the STILL
however knew WorreIl and took
him TO his home. During the night
the house was surrounded by the
moonshiners, who demanded that this
man should give Wnrrefl up
One OF the women IN the house
shipped out and went to Floyd AL
lens home. who came about 3 o'clock
IN the morning to the house and took
Worrell away from the n,oonshiners.
For his part in this Sidney Towe was
sentenced to one yesr In the United
states penitentiary at Columbus, o.,
and served the sentence.
Floyd Allen claimed Towe had al
ways borne him i'll will on account
OF this,, and the defend ant undertook
TO prove this by Floyd Allen. The
court. however. held that IL was only
proper 70 prove that Towe was sen
fenced by the record Of the case, ana
that this other incident was not ma
tef1sl, and could not be testified to.
After Discovered Evidence.
Bills of exceptions Nos. So. "a and
e are merely n to the, samissibllity
OF testimony.
No. SO. sets forth the fact that the
defendant offered to prove that he
had been convicted on the Indictment
for killing Judge Massie. All OF the
evidence tending to prove that the
~ 10 80 a u.