Viewing page 233 of 233

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

Bureau of R.F. & A. Lands
Office Asst Sub Asst Comr
Farmville Va May 4 1867

Respectfully returned with the information that my opinion that in the within named case.- "The evidence did not clearly sustain the charge &c" was based upon the fact, that in my judgment the record does not show any direct testimony connecting Joe Bell with the burglary, and I do not now see anything in the testimony, as stated in the enclosed copy of the record, that justifies any substantial suspicion of guilt - excepting - that during the night in which the burglary was committed, Joe Bell carried to the house of Saml Thuckston a quantity of lard in a tin fiskin. This, in connection with the conversations which then and subsequently occurred between Joe Bell & Mrs Martin at Mr Thuckston's, furnished the only ground upon which the suspicion of guilt could be inferred, and which was admitted by the  

[[stamp]] RECEIVED OFFICE SUPT. 2d SUB DIST. MAY 8 1867 [[/stamp]]