Year: 1867

particular letter, but all we received from
him We're mailed in Richmond.


The Judge stated that the principle was
we'll settled that the contents of letter
should not be proved unless the fact Of its
destruction had previously been proven.
He thought that the destruction had in
this instance been established. The Com
monweath might now proceed TO prove
its contents.


Colonel Johnson thought that inasmuch
as the letter had been traced to another
party, Miss Zela Pitts, its contents should
not be proven by any one else than herself.


The court reiterated the opinion: the
fact that the letter could not be found
after dlligent search, having been fully
established. To this decision the counsel
for the accused filed bill of exception.


Miss Pitts resumed: In the first letter
the accused stated he arrived at Milford
too late to take the cars in the evening,
and that he arrived in Richmond on Satur-
day morning, and that they were staying
at the Virginia house. He also said that
they went out shopping on Saturday, and
to the post-office, where he found a letter
| from DR.. Dorset, who offered him pla ce.
| He said that they went to DR.. Dorset's as the
wages were good, and it was near Mr.. Car
ter'S, where he had lived the year before.
He also said that DR.. Dorset was a man Of
+" considerable military renown.' He
stated that Mrs. Brown had invited them
| to her house, but as she was in INDECENT
circumstances he thought it best to go to
the Virginia house. On Sunday they at
| tended service three times in churches of
different denominations. There were two
letters received after the first.
Colonel Young: How was your sister
dressed when she left home


Witness: She had on a purple calico
dress, with a black and white spot, dark
gray sacque, and white straw hat trim
med with broad blue ribbon. Tine brm
of the hat was cut off the day before she
started. There was bunch Of blue flow
ers in it. She also Wore purple kid gloves.
There was white frill around the dress.
Her only piece of jewelry was gold
lreastpin, with a raised bunch Of fruit.
The pin had been broken cut and a needle
put in the place of it by Phillips, who
sol1ercd it in with lead.


Nv sister had in her trunk a black silk,
worsted dress with broad stripe, and u
calico with snail red figure. She wore
home-knit stockings, knit by my mother,
and given to her the day before she left
home. The underskirt which she Wore
was patched, and the chemise had band
made by myself Her hair was cut short
behind. Her person was very thin, and
her complexion pale.


Witness here exhibited some samples
of the material Of which her sisters clo-
thing was made.


Colonel Johnson objected to the intro
duction of the samples at this point. He
thought that the Commonwealth should
first show what was found in possession OF
the accused, and then To show the cor
reSpondcnce between them and the c!o-
thing worn by the sister OF Miss Pitts. He
held that the Attorney for the Common
wealth was inverting the proper order Of
Introducing evidence. 1t should first be
proved that similar articles were found on
the deceased. These articles bad not yet
been connected with the dead body found
by Mr.. Drinker.


The court said that it was perfectly
legitimate for the Commonwealth to prove
what Mrs. Phillips had on when she left
home. The witness had already described
her apparel, and it was therefore compe-
tent 70 Introduce certain samples, inquir-
ing whether they were like that worn by
the deceased. The objection was there
fore ovcrruicd.


Miss Pitts resumed The accused car
ried away his own and M sisters clothing
in her trunk, and left his with MS.


The trunk found in Phliips'S room at
Mr.. Turner's was here introduced and
identified as the one alluded to by the
witness


| described that trunk to the officer be-
fore | left home. The trunk was then
opened and the witness identified worstcd
dress, black silk dress, undcrclohing,
novel bound in cloth, and other articles, as
the property Of her sister. Certain mar
cinal remarks were repeated from memory
to the jury, and tou@i as written in the
novel.


The articles were commented upon by
the witness as they were taken from the
trunk That collar my sister received in
letter the day before she LETT home that
ribbon was given her by my mother; tic
stockings she knit herself; / worked that
skirt the net she bought to wear on the
back of her head after she cut of her hair;
that is likeness Of my cousin; the flowers
were worn on the front part Of her hat;
the gloves are hers.


All these articles we're foundi iQ Phillips
trunk except the artificial tlowers and
gloves which were found on the person of
the murdered woman i'll Drinkers woods.
Some Of the things, the witness said, were
given to her sister by Phillips when he first
came to their house in 1863. Two locks Of
hair in G piece of paper marked "Jetcr
and Em ".were shown as having been given
TO Mrs. Pitts before her daughter left
home with the accused.


Witness resumed: My sisters COM
plexion was iairer than my own, and her
hair was Of a lighter shade.


Cross examined by Judge Crump: The
trunk which Mr.. Phillips left at our house
was brought away by Mr.. Cole and Mr..
Knox. There was nothing in it,


The accused made the acquaintance of
nv sister in January, 1868, and corre-
spouded with her until July, 1863, when
they were married. He stayed at our
house from January until May in that year,
when he left, and came back in October.
He was then in the army. l think ne
visited US again in 1864 perhaps in the
spring. After he left the army We did not
hear from him for more than four months.


Question: When did he leave the army l.


Witness: don't know.


Question: Didn't you see his parole


Witness.-Well, yes, think did. Ny
sister engaged herself to him while ne was
sick at our house in 1863. He had
consulted my mother about the marriage.
They always appeared atfectionate. He