The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-01-16


njcaljt.es. VS. refused. aid that the +.
present pefsLii"I Wa~ presented al tAe
January term.
The opinion ehea saufnarlzes the f
citations submitted by tire petitioners,
which they present ss uracedeuts tbs +
court might follow i'm granting their
prayer and these tho court passes
UP. declaring that after .uFtSls8 ion
xhey Nnd that the caErs cited have no 7
bearing on Virginia procedure. The
opinion then goes on Ia sac That the
court IS mot here 10 pass UPON pro-
cedure n other jurisdictions
1T is admitted. reCltes the opinion
'1n the petition that there Is no
case 10 he found in the record of the
courts OF the Commonwealth a which
any such procedure he's been fecog
nized or acted upon We &c far
Their We have not only been unable
to nnd any case. b9t We can find no
expression of opinion ia any case CT
BIZ any text writer or IN any of fbe
sources In which there Is tne sugses-
ton or a hint OF the existence II
such practice
Can Find No Precedent.
The statute law in numerous m
stances provides for the amendment
pf judgments in the trial court after
the term in which they were rendered
power is carefully circumscrihed as
TO its extent and limited a 10 the
TINA within which such relief may pe
had. 1t, therefore, sufficiently appears
not only that there is no precedent
in the records of the Commonwealth
for granting the prayer for the pc
titioners, but the books are filled Hijh
cases contradictory and repugnaut 70
the existence of any such practice
"A
that for this court to usurp rUwcrs
which If has never hitherto exercise
would establish IA dangerous Pr6ce-
dent.
Ant had the -ceurt reached u DIFF
ferant conclusion upon the PRIMARY
question Of power there is 9othing N
the case presented to us which would
Justify It's exercise. II will hardly he
commended that even IN those jtTis'lc-
lions where the power 10 conceded TO
exist II would not be resorted To eN-
cept under conditions that would jIs-
tisy a new trial for after discover 4
evidence in cases in which the tenn
had not ended at which the 3tjK-
nent complained of had been rem
dered.
Prisoners Had Fair Trials.
The opinion, continuing, recites the
facts that Floyd Allen was indicted IN
April for the murder of the Hitlsviie
court officers committed March 14tht
that the defendants elected TO pe
tried separately and that judgements
were not entered against him ana
Claude until September 10th. ia or
der that they might be witnesses IN
the other cases growing out OF the
affair. Further. the court says, the
homic!des took place IN The !44At n
day and In the presence Of large
number of Witnesses In the success
siye trials the witnesses Were sub
ieeted 10 examination, crosse &ami ma
ton and recross- examination and
their knowledge of the facts prpbed
in every conceivable way. There was
every opportunity for full ana com
plete presentation og the facts; the
prisoners were defended by capable.
faithful, earnest and energetic coun-
sci who left no stone unturned IN
their behalf Every legal means for
breaking down the testimony OF the
Commonwealth and i1npeaching the
characters of its witnesses was en-
pfoyerf,- but the 5ufi-s 81 each e+'|-i'
found verdiets of first degree murder.
Some Of the evidence presented "A
this petition, the court says, WAS di~~
covered before the Judgment was en-
tered: the other evidence Is an effort
to impeach the characters ~ the wit
nesex Of. the Commonwealth and is
addressed TO questions that were In
yesfigated at the trials ana comes
within the rules Of cumulative evil
dence. and taken as a whole Is not
such as to produce a different result
II new trial were awarded.
SustainS Former Rulings.
The subject or granting new trials
On fter-discovered evidence has been
discussed before in cases decided hi
this court
In 81. Johns executors VS. Alder
son. 50 Graft. Va, Testimony must
have been discovered since former
trial: ii must appear that IT could not
be obtained with reasonable diligence
rs,s4>t -iS.~ t}s4 u ~ sss >,Ss+:' -
She ssssse: 1hat II II ugt e. 10 tS3s met
ita Of the case and net to impeach
. character OF former witnesses and
that II must not lie merely cumuia~
tive"
The opinion cites several similar Viz
ein!a rulings 81 which the opinions
are identical with the case G-Yen'
among them city Of Norfolk We. Joh"a-
kln, "a Va 2s5. Jones SO Martins
vile, III Va 1903. and Nichols Va Com
monwealth. 81 va. 755, and states ih7t
these citations might be multiplied .n-
definitely.
Determined Upon Merit.
'Tt is urged upon U.S. continues the
court. that because ~ the trials 90
the others the charge ~ conspuaeE
was abandoned ana yerd}cts of SECOND
degree murder returned that This peu-
ton should he granted The guilt or
Innocence Of the petitioners mp=t te
determined by tie record betoie u=
The records III tie other trial 77E1
not been hcre. nor are WEE familiar
WITH them, bet granting the statement
Of the counsel fer the petitioners 70
hs atturats IN this respect, + could
not produce the result contended for.
The Commonwealth 10 not bosnd 70
pursue the same line u prosecution
In all the cases, though the same
transaction was under investigation,
With respect 70 the ver6icts of the
sur!es being more lenient IN the sub
eecuent cases. that.is a matter beyond
the control Of the court
The questions before Is are these
Were the accused guilty ~ the or
senses charged We're they tried In
accordance with tina law Of the land
and does the evidence support the YER
diets II does not concern us that In
the other cases the iaries- inflicted
uailder punishments upon substantially
the same state Of facts
Evidence Supports Judgments.
The circumstances attending the
- go MeSarA xss are ssarfa aS 70 ie@Er