Year: 1867

and the spectators receive with eager inte-
rest every word falling from the lips of
witness, although they may constitute
part Of twice or thrice e-told tale.


THE INTERCEPTED LETTER.


Miss India Turner was the first witness
called yesterday. She testified: Il am
acquainted. with the accused. His bro
ther married my sister. l saw letter
addressed to the accused during the
year 1866. 1t was in my fathers pos
session. He showed it to me, and I
read it. Do not know what became
Of it, but suppose it was destroyed, as I
never saw it afterwards. The letter was
addressed to Mg. Phillips, and purported
to come from


The counsel for the accused objected to
the introduction of this testimony until
the destruction of the letter had been
proved. IL 1 -.sa2-A'


Colonel Young waived the point for the
present.


Miss Turner resumed: did not speak
to the accused about the letter, and did
not write anything to him.


Colonel Young: Did you take any steps
about it?


Colonel Johnson objected to this ques-
ton.


Colonel Young said that he desired to
prove the connection OF this letter with
the prisoner, and whether it's contents had
in any way whatever been communicated
to him. This was certainly legitimate
testimony.


Colonel johnson thought that the Com
monwealth had no right whatever to de-
mand from this witness an account Of
every conversation and all that ever
transpired between herself and the priso-
ner at the bar.


Colonel Young then propounded the
question in another form.


Witness resumed: never in any way
communicated to the prisoner the fact
that had seen the letter.


Colonel Young: Did you never commu-
nicate to him any action that you took in
consequence of seeing that letter?


Colonel Johnson objected to this ques-
ton.


Colonel Young desired to know from the
court if he might not inquire whether the
witness had not communicated with the
writer of the letter?


The court decided that the Attorney for
the Commonwealth might ask whether
such letter was received, whether it
reached the prisoner, and from what
source it came.


The counsel for the accused filed bill
of exceptions to the ruling of the court
which would admit the testimony in re-
gard to where the letter came from. Be-
fore the bill of exceptions was signed by
the Judge, with the leave of the. court,
Colonel Young withdrew the question, and
asked another, which he thought would
make the bill Of exceptions unnecessary.


QueS.-Did the accused spend much
time at your fathers WitneSS.-ue was
there from October, 1865, until June, 1866.


Ques.-Did he ever make any allusion
to his marriage? Witness.-None. I had
no information from him to'the effect that
he was married.


Ques.-Whcn did you see the letter to
which you have before alluded


Judge Crump said that, in behalf Of the
accused, he felt it his duty to object to the
introduction of any further testimony in
regard to this letter. The witness had
already testified that she had never COM
municated its contents to the accused.
Further questions about it were, therefore,
unnecessary and improper.


The court decided that it was perfectly
proper to inquire concerning the time that
the witness saw the letter.


To this ruling the counsel for the ac-
cused fled another bill Of exceptions, and
Colonel johnson stated that he would OBJ
iect to the introduction Of any further
testimony about the letter until it had
been brought home to the prisoner.
/ After preparing the bill Of exceptions,
Colonel Johnson desired that the Common
wealth's Attorney should reduce his ques-
tions to writing which the latter declined
to do.


Witness resumed The letter was re-
ceived some time in February, 1866. Phil
lips was not at our house at the time.
There was no envelope upon the letter.


QueS.-Did the letter purport to be from
any place if so, what was that placer


Objected to by Colonel johnson. Ques-
tion withdrawn.


Ques.-Did you communicate with the
person from whom that letter was re-
ceived


Objected to by Colonel Johnson.
Colonel Young said he proposed to show
that the witness had written to the writer
of that letter, and that that writer was the
wife Of the accused.


The court decided that the Common
wealth must first prove that the contents
of that letter, or the fact of its receipt, had
been communicated to the accused. The
Commemorative Attorney, however, may
inquire whether the witness repiled 10
that letter, whether the reJoinder OF the
,cr;ter of the letter was in any way brought
to the notice Of the accused, ana What
conversation passed between him and the
witness in reference to the matter. The
court had already decided that the con-
nectiou of the letter with the prisoner
must be established, and these questions
may be propounded TO attain that result;


The counsel for the accused hled Dill
of exceptions to this decision.
Question by the attorney for the COM
mon,oeuHh.-Did you communicate In any
way with the writer of that letter! Ans.
l did.


QueS.-By letter? AnS.-l did.


Qees.-Did you receive reply ans.
l did.


Oues.-Did you communicate the reply
in any manner to the accused. IahS.-l
did. ;,


Ques.-Was your communication VIII
ten or verbal? -ins.-It was written.
Oues.-Did the accused receive the COM
munication. Ans.-He did. l delivered
it to him myself, some time III June, 'oo'
/ never saw it afterwards.
Ques.-What was the tenor and SUD-
stance of your communication to the ac-
cused 4ns.-It was in reference 10 my
letter to the writer of the letter founo Dy
nv father. 1t has been so long time
| - - uaat aeenrrad that | have for