Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1922-07-15

Inc Wn0le case was reversed ana
sent back for q new trial on the cross
examination Of Mr.. Denny Of the Com
monwealth's star witness, tho woman
upon whom 1t is alleged the attack was
made, as may be seen from the Su-
preme Court opinion, which reads as
follows:
Opinion by Judge Martin P. Burks,
Wytheville, Va, June 15, 1922.
GREEN VS.. COMMONWEALTH.
Circuit Court of Chesterfield County.
The plaintiff in error was convicted
of robbing Mrs. Lille Priddy, and
sentenced to the penitentiary for
eighteen years.
The petition for the writ Of error
is 80 inartifically drawn that it Is d.,
ficult to say what errors are assign.
cd. Giving the petitioner the benefit
of all doubt OH this question, he as
signs as error that the verdict Is coli
trary to the evidence, and possible
that there was error in not compelling
the Commonwealth to produce re-
ce'pt for $500 from the A. and r.
Clothing Co., given to the accused on
the day Of the alleged offense, and
which he had On his person when q,
rested but was taken from him and
was not produced ut the trial.
The defendant entered q plea Of not
guilty, but his whole defense was TIA
alibi, which he offered testimony to
prove. The testimony for the Common
wealth of his presence and Of the as.
sault and battery upon Mrs. Priddy IS
direct and positive, and hence the yer
dict Of the jury upon this point Is
conclusive upon this court. This, how
ever, did not relieve the Common
wealth Of tire burden Of proving ~
You'd a reasonable doubt. The only
witness who testified as to the alleg-
cd robbery was Mrs. Priddy. Her H.,
count Of what took place is substan-
TALLY as follows: About $50 O'Clock
on the afternoon of May ID, 1921, she
was walking along Il private road, in
Chesterfield County leading from her
fathers house into the public road tu
Stop II on the Richmond Petersburg
electric line; that she saw the accused
approaching from the direction o.
Stop II at distance Of about city
pocketbook in her hand in which there
was ring Of the value of$3000, II
fountain pen Of the value Of $500 and
1915 in money; when she saw him ap
preaching. she, from force of lraul,,
wrapped the chain Of the pockct-book
around her wrist; that as lie passcu
her, distant about five feet, he tipped
his hat and said, Good evening",
just as politely as you please; that
just after he passed her he struck her
right down across tho neck and should
CT with Il stick that she must have
been unconscious for minute or two,
and when she came to herself he was
standing DYER her, and she thought ho
was going to choke her and she Kick
cd him with both feet between the
knee and hip; that she began scream.
ing and he ran Off up the road in the
direction from which she had come.
She further testified that the chain or
the poclct-book was not broken before
SHE fell, and that 81 had it in this
hand and it fell across the road and I
was lying across the road, my should
ers were IN the mud in rut," and
that she did not know how the pocket
book was taken from her hand
On cross-cXamination she testified
rs follows:
Q. when the pocket-book was found
there, it had the ring in it, didn't it?
A. "Had everything in it.
Q. old you see him put the pocket
book down?
A. "No. I did not.
@. Didn't see him with it at all, did
you?
A. "No, did not.
Q. did you know whether the peck
et.book fell from your hand?
a. mo, it didn't fall.
@. GLOW far was it from you when
it was picked up?
A. Just right across the road.
q. Il asked you how far. it was.
A. II don't know how far it was.
think 1t was about or feet.
q. Mrs. Priddy. do you know wheth
er or not this pocket-book was taken
from your hand, or whether 1t fell
when you fell.
A. ut must have been snatched
from my hand because it could not
nave fallen because I had the chain
wrapped around my wrist like this
N""ilioioliuIillSj ana SOMEBODY pull
Ell the pocket-book and broke tho
chain.
OF course, if she was unconscious
at the time she could not know, ana
her answer to the question was lne1,
opinion, conclusion or deduction,
which she had no right to give. The
only fact stated is that she had TIN.
chain wrapped around her wrist and
that the chain was broken. There is
nothing in the record to indicate what
the strength Of the chain was. The
testimony does not show that the &C
cused ever, for moment of time had
the pocket-book and it's contents in his
absolute control. The testimony Of
Mrs. Priddy, If credited by the fury,
showed a very violent assault and burt
terry upon her by the plaintiff in ell,
but does not establish a robbery.
Robbery is the taking, with the in
tent to deprive the owner permanently
or personal property, from his persol.
or In his presence, against his will, by
violence or intimidation Clark's CT.
Law I'D ed.) 373; Q Bish. Or. Law
9th ed PIP. 654, 655. The taking