Year: 1867

from hers. II was solemnized In open day
her friends WIRE invited, and doubtless =
wedding feast was spread. II was not
secret In the county OF Essex Why does the
fact that he was afraid 10 tell his father au.
thorize the inference that he murdered tho
poor woman whom, from an impulse Of graft.
tnde, he married7 What but honorable and
praiseworthy gratitude could have induced
the accused to~marry this woman? She was
not rich either In worldly possessions or in
personal attractions. Can we conceive that
he married her merely TO murder her? Gould
4 man whose character according to eyery
witness introduced, has been irrpproachabe
except IN the fact that he concealed his mar
riagc, in wanton malice plan so foul crime
1t is testified that up to the very moment OF
their departure from Essex he was always
tender and affectonate, although, In the Ian
guage of Miss Pitts, he had ga will OF his
own"


Now it is n noticeable fact that when the
accused left Essex he seemed at last to have
made mp his mind 10 take HE wife to his II
thcr's home ar!d acknowledge her before his
friends. In Richmond, at the Virginia House
he in ntroduced her his wife and did not by
word or gesture repel her atfectionate car
rlage. If there had been a murderous pur-
pose in his heart would he have brought her
thus TO q place where he was we'll known, in
troducing her as his wife, and walking the
streets with her upon his arm? Rem ember,
too, no one saw them leave the house together
on Sunday. 1t is my own impression that
they meta he came up Broad street and she
was going dOl1n. They were seen together on
Franklin street, and she was never seen again
until eleven days after, when her bruised
corpse was found several miles from the spot
where last they were observed together.


You may reasonably call n man to account
for a companion with whom he parts and is
Immediately afterwards found dead, but you
cannot do it when weeks have elapsed since
the parting. You cannot hang this man for
leaving his wife in Sle street when the circum
stances of their parting are unexplained. If
these were the days of the rack and the thumb
screw, we might force tho prisoner tC account
for his wife. But what chance has he had
TO account for her since he was arrested while
quietly at work in Mr.. Turner field?


AT this point Judge Crump, in q slight di-
gresson, briefly reviewed the testimony of the
officer and detectiye who made the arrest.
Both Of them received 4 scalhing rebuke for
the part which they had taken in their al
legged threats and plans TO entrap the accused.
Did they expect him, with perfect self posses
sion, to tell them that he had n wife, while
their oaths and threats were sill sounding in
his ears. If the chief justice of the county,
who viewed the scene, had stepped up and
calmly asked an explanation, he would doubt
less have received it.


The speaker then passed on TO consider the
department of the accused on the day the
3ody was brought to Mr.. George Tur-
ner's. George w. Turner did not 70 TO see the
body. Why, then, could we not well infer
that he killed the woman. Again, is 1t rea-
sonab!e At all to suppose that this man would
have taken his victim 10 u spot within half Il
mile of Il house At which he was 4 constant
visitor, and Of which he expected soon TO be
Il resident.


He then considered the facts of the finding
of the body, and argued that they precluded
the possibility of the guilt of the prisoner
The condition of the clothing on the body
proved that it could not have been where it
was for more than two or three days. Another
fact, that the clothing was clean and fresh
looking when she had worn them from home,
travelled in u carriage for fifteen miles, then
on the cars, and for more than ten days in
Richmond, is most singular. That clothing
must have been washed between the time OF
her departure from home and the time that
the body was found. Certainly she was not
with the accused when she made the change
Of apparel.


Would the prisoner have remained in the
immediate vicinity of where his murdered
wife was lying if he had been the perpetrator
of the crime? Could he have knelt by his bed
side, before retiring, 10 ask the blessing of 4
Just God if he had murdered that woman,
whose body was then upon the same premises
with himself? He contended that his every
act after the body was found, tended to estab-
lish the innocence of the accused.


He then alluded 10 the testimony in regard
TO the trunk. 1t had been inquest tionably esta-
abishrd that the trunk was in Surry, although
the negroes introduced had Il faint impression
that it was at the brick yard.


He then returned 10 the facts in regard to
the separation of the accused from his wife.
The prisoner lips were sealed, and he had nC
opportunity TO account for the separation
His testimony was not admissible. Is 1t not
rs proba bic that she left him through some
sudden whim rs that he left her :? She was no.
a stranger in the city. Testimony introduced
proves that she had visited Richmond thre,
times, and had acquaintance and relations
here. Or may she not have been selZed anc
hidden BY those whose motive was to escape
the vengeance of an offended husband. How
could this man have borne her into the coun
try that Sunday evening, and after cilectlng
the bloody deed, returned to MIR. Miles Phil
lpss before the darkness of night had fallen
And You cannot say that if he did not kill her
then that he killed her at some other time
This will not do. Because Miles Phillips was
mistaken upon collateral fact ii is absurd tc
argue that he was mistaken more III lmportin
points of his sworn statement. 1he TACT thtl
The accused did stay ut his house is beyond
doubt, and Miles Phillips and Oscar concur in
this statement.


The counsel maintained that the accused
did not know of the death of his wife when he
left the city of Richmoud. One OF the stronges1
nroofs that he did not kill her is that he LETT
upon her body the only thing which he knew
TO be a family relic. II he had been preparing
to announce her death, would he not nave re
moved The tell tale brcastpin in order to eX'
hbit it 10 her stricken relatives! ne ftc
that he kept in his trunk every article OF hei
clothing proves that though they had sepa-
rated under a cloud, he expected TO meet hel
again. If he murdered her, why did he no.
DESTROY the clothes, when he had every oppor
tuuity 10 do so ? If the letter from Dorset
farm was written at all, il must have beer
written to prevent alarm on the par
OF her friends, and in the hope thai
she might yet return to his embrace III he
had killed her, his first step would have beer
10 destroy every rag that might remind him o
his victim. Could he have looked into tina
trunk without feeling the pangs OF remorse
Could he have borne the reproaches OF III:
accusing conscience as he gazed upon the me
MORALS of his guilt?


In concluding, Judge Crnmp stated that NJ
had felt il necessary 10 dwell only upon TIT
most important points. He implored the jury
TO try the case i'll the crucIble OF truth, 10 pre-
side with homes hearts, and rise above popu
lar prejudice and he felt assured that thel
verdict would be Just.


AFTERNOON SESSION.


The court met 1T halfpast3 o'clock.


COLONEL JoHSsoN's ARGUMENT.


Colonel johnson said that, rs one OF the orr
pinol COUNSEL he entertained as he had sine
he first became acquainted WIN the prisoner
the opinion that he was an innocent Ihah
Everything he had heard and seen from III
hrrinninp 10 the end had confirmed him of th
correctness of this conclusion. He did no
stand, however, for .he ridiculous purpose O
showing his innocence. The point TO Whicl
ne would endeavor 10 direct his argument wa
whether or not there was suihcient PROOF ~
rho estimation of the law to show that III
killed this woman.


The jury occupied peculiar position, as the.
had been told by the Commonwealth The cas-
was one of deep interest. 1t had been he
cessary to summon several hundred before
twelve men could be secured 10 sit III iin nRai .
heen written and said, after all the sensational
rumors that had been spread, they had SAT
and Notwithstanding all the gossip and scan