Lexington gazette. [volume] (Lexington, Va.) 1871-1962, 1912-09-18
Supreme Court Grants New Trial to
R.V, Pattersonl

son.
In a lengthy opinion the Court
sustained every point in Patterson
favor that was passed upon. The
Court in reviewing the case says as
follows:
The assignments of error in the
petition, upon which this writ OF
error was awarded the prisoner,
relate ID to the admission OF i'm
proper evidence; (2) exclusion of
evidence offered by the defense; (3)
instructions given on behalf OF the
Common wealth, and tho rejection oil
instructions asked for by the de-
Tense; "a refusal to set aside the
verdict and award a new trial be-
cause OF after-discovered evidence;
and ~ refusal to set aside the YER
dict because contrary to the law and
the evidence.
The deceased, il appears, moved
to the house where he died about
Christmas preceding the occurrence
resulting in the wound inflicted by |
plaintiff in error upon him, which |
was followed by his death, aud, &C
cording to evidence III the record
unobjected to, from the time he
went there be began to behave very
badly towards plaintiff in error and
his two daughters who lived nea r
him, growing out OF the refusal Of
plaintiff in error to allow hunting
on his lands. Plaintiff in error lived
upon his own land with his two
daughters, aged sixteen and seven
teen years, respectively, whose
mother died when they were about
twelve years younger, since VIII ich
time he has had the entire care of
these girls, carrying them about
with him until they became large
enough for one TO remain at home
3 while the other went with him + {
work when he went to the fields;
deceased on numerous occasions
and whenever opportunity was al
forded not only used abusive Ian
% lage to plaintiff in error in tn
lie presence OF his daughters, but be
IN haved in the presence Of the latter
i. when alone and unprotected, in tn
most indecent and shocking mar
ner, using language too vile and il
" decent to be here repeated. Thel
tlV was evidence tending to show tn
The on the morning OF the day OF Il
ve, homicide plaintiff in error left b
va home accompanied by one of b
daughters, each riding a horse,
go TO his mountain land ,one mile l
U" South river, where he and b
>. daughter had seen a ground he
ub, the day before. and for the purpo
the OF killing it carried his double ba
rel gun loaded with large shot"
The court further recited the e.
oS dence in the case brought out
hall the first trial, of the alteration a
on shooting by the plaintiff in error
ms deceased and of his death. abo
nd seven o'clock that evening. T
court says in conclusion:
The court is OF opinion that I
dying declarations OF the deceas'
Ano allowed to go to the jury at the tr
over the objection OF plaintiff in
ror, were improperly admitted
asst evidence. Obecause it was not Fl
shown that the deceased belieS
-;fo he was going to die when these
.,r clarations were made; and ~ g,
40 il the deceased had believed he '
f,a going 10 die at the time he made
;ca. declarations narrated by the with
BILE. @, VOL So'iio VI Ino s'~selneh's
'tsr. to have been made by the decea
mo-, were not a part of the RES GEsT
v If nor did they relate to the trans;
bar ion itself which resulted in the
The ciarah' oeatn'
Hin The court then cites and quo
from numerous authorities to
aoa y tain it's opinion, holding that pro
Mr. evidence was excluded, and imp
and er instruction given.
A so The result will be a new trial
+ the Patterson at the November teri
srved 'no court W DC nao IN accord;
She with the opinion of the court. u