The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1919-04-17

degree murder; that there was lack
OF evidence of intent on the part or ths
officers to 'flay for these partIcvisy
men, and called particular attention to
the fact that, as officers Of the law.
they were not required to retreat when
attacked
Commemorative Attorney Williams.
in reply, asserted that there was no
precedent for bali In Virginia ~
capital case, except where the health
OF the accused would be Jeopa rdized by
incarceration. Hudson, he said. had a
gun, which he could have used instead
or using bottle as a weapon OF de-
Tense. The commonwealth. he said. ex-
pected to have additional evidence
when the case comes to trial and de-
elared that in the case OF Hudson there
was not sufficient resistance to justify
tho officers in shooting him. These
men, he said, were nisdemenants and
there was no presumption of law that
the officers were in the discharge OF
their duty in attempting to arrest
them without warrant.
Mr. Wendenburg, in closing the ar
gument, called attention to the unusual
situation of one branch Of tho state
government being pitted against anoth-
er in court and declared that the con-
fnement of the officers was "paralyz-
ing an arm of the government go val
liable that the legislature appropriated
100000 for its maintenance--nore than
was paid to all commonwealth's attor-
neys I'm the same period---in order that
violators of the prohibition law might
be brought to trial"
Outrage Against Law.
He characterized the detention OF
the accused as "an injunction against
the prohibition law and outrage
against law and order "It is saying
to bootleggers that they can come and
go at WILL he said
iiceman shooting a boy whom he de-
tected in the act of stealing fowls and
he said, saw the crime committed i'm
without further hearing. The officers.
who was dismissed by magistrate
their presence and II was their duty to
see that the men did not get away
when Shackelford drew a pistol and
fired, he said it was the duty OF tho
officers to shoot and to shoot tn Kill.
There is no question" ne said. hut
that this is n justfiahle killing Of OUT
laws who have placed themselves out
side of the pale of the law to carry on
their unlawful traffic. They tried tn
kill All rfficer and that ATTEMPT cost
them their lives. These inspectors wern
the representative of law and order
and in the discharge OF their duty and
should be admitted to bail In a reason
able amount
Judges Prentis and Sims held brief
conference ana t6e former announced
his decision To grant bail and stated
that Judge Sims concurred The latter
nodded assent. Judge Prentis asked
what bail Commemorative Attorney
Williams would suggest and the latter
said that as there were two charges
Of murder against each Of the nspec-
tors, he thought $40 e00 each would be
the proper bond Mr. Wendenburg sug
gested that as the commonw eatths at
torney had, himself named s250n In
each case when the four Inspector
ere charged with killing ShRckelford.
before Hudson died. s2.50n for each in
spector in each of the two charges
against them would he ample--tha'
would mean 5000 bond for each in
spector.
However he dtd not argue thts point =
Judge Prentis who. in granting BAH,
set aside the ruling Of Judge Within
and Ind ovcrruled the protest Of Com
monwealth's Attorney Williams against
any bail. accepted tho figures suggested
by the commemorative attorney. He
had already expressed his belief thai
the Officers would be on hand for trial
and II was plain that he was satisfied
that any bail required could and would
be promptly given,
The inspectors were bailed for their
appearance Nav IL. the second day Of
the next term OF the Shenandoah county
circuit court, The grand jury meets
on Monday. April ie. and II is presumed
that indictments viii be found on that
day.