Viewing page 156 of 270

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

LOCAL MATTERS.

ARREST OF THE COURT OF MAGISTRATES. -
On Wednesday, on complaint of J.C. Jones, U.S. Commissioner B.B. Foster issued an order for the arrest of every member of this Court. Major Croft, U.S. Marshal, arrested the parties the same evening. They were released on their recognizance to appear before the Commissioner the next day.
Thursday morning every member of the bench appeared before the Commissioner.
The following is the copy of the order:
United States of America, District of Virginia, City of Norfolk, ss.
James C. Jones. on oath, complained of Wm. W. Lamb, Andrew L. Hill, John E. Doyle, Conway Whittle, and S. March, alleges, and says that the parties complained of, being Justices of the Corporation of the City of Norfolk, sitting as the Court of said Corporation, on the twenty-fifth day of February, 1867, did, under color of certain laws, statutes, regulation, or customs, subject certain inhabitants of the State of Virginia, to wit: two, or more persons of color ---, by reason of color, or race to the deprivation of their sacred rights to give evidence before said Court of Corporation of the City of Norfolk, in a certain case at law, then and there pending, styled the Commonwealth vs. Wm. R. Hammond.
J.C. JONES
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 26th day of February, 1867.
U.S. vs. W.W. Lamb, et al.
J.C. Jones, complainant.
Henry M. Bowden, Clerk of the Court of this city, was the first witness examined:
I was present at the court at the examination of Hammond; Mr. Porter, Commonwealth's Attorney, proposed to offer the evidence of certain negroes, which the court refused to receive under the statute; a colored man and two colored women were called by Mr. Porter; they come forward and answered as parties answering the their names called, and the question to their admissibility was raised by one of the counsel for the prisoner Hammond; the question was argued, the code of Virginia was referred to, and the court decided that under the statute they were not admissible; I do now know that they expressed fully their reasons, but they decided not to admit them; they did not express any reason, simply saying they would not receive the evidence; Commonwealth vs. Hammond; the evidence was offered in favor of the Commonwealth; the court committed the prisoner for trial from the evidence adduced from them; the statute of Virginia prescribes what evidence may be received; the effect of the decision was to restrain the State, and not the prisoner; the Civil Rights bill was not read, or produced, but it was referred to in the argument; no copy of the law has been furnished me for the use of the court.
The next witness examined was John S. Tucker, Esq. - I was in the Corporation Court on February 25th; I was one of the prisoner's counsel in the case of the Commonwealth vs. Hammond, Chas. H. Porter represented the Commonwealth; Hammond was charged with larceny; a white witness was introduced and proved that Hammond came to her house in January or December, remained two days, and left early in the morning, without giving notice. After discovering his absence, she missed several garments; it was also proved by the same witness that she recognized one of the articles at the jail, but up to this time there is no proof that the articles were found in the possession of the prisoner.
The Commonwealth's Attorney offered three negro witnesses to prove that they had bought some of the articles of Hammond.
The counsel for defense objected, on the ground that the laws of Virginia did not authorize it. The Prosecutive's Attorney argued that the State law did authorize, but if there was any doubts on that point, the Civil Rights bill certainly authorized the admission of negro testimony; and advised the Court as a matter of experience to admit the