Nansemond-Isle of Wight County Virginia USGenWeb Archives Newpapers.....Murder trial, 1895 

************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/va/vafiles.htm
************************************************

William James URQUHART, 
accused of the murder of John E. GAY, 8 Nov 1870, 
arraigned, 25 Jul 1895; tried 13-15 Aug 1895, 
found guilty, 15 Aug 1895; sentenced to 5 years 


SUFFOLK LOCAL. 
[...] 

URQUHART'S PRELIMINARY HEARING - The preliminary hearing of William J. 
Urquhart, accused of the murder of John E. Gay, on November 8, 1870, 
took place yesterday in the county court house before R.L. Brewer, Jr., mayor 
of Suffolk.  The crowd in attendance was the largest which has gathered in the 
building for several years.  Notwithstanding the rain storm, spectators began 
to assemble some time before tho proceedings were begun, and when order was 
called almost every available space on the floor and gallery was occupied. 

 Shortly after 11 o'clock the defendant as per previous engagement with the 
sheriff walked into the temple of justice and voluntarily surrendered himself, 
after being for more than twenty-four years a fugitive from justice.  As he 
walked in and sat down by his counsel his bended form and white beard and 
locks were the cynosure of all eyes.  His age is fifty-seven, but appears much 
older. 

  The Mayor read the warrant, both sides announced their readiness for 
procedure and the Sheriff called the witnesses, the first of whom to testify 
was Mrs. John E. Gay, widow of the deceased, whose statement was as follows: 
She last saw her husband alive at 5 a.m. on November 8, 1870, when he started 
with a load of corn for Isle of Wight county, from his home at Magnolia 
station.  She next saw him at 4 o'clock in the afternoon lying dead in the 
path a short distance from home, with a bullet hole in the left side.  She 
remained by him till the coroner's jury met at 7 p.m.  On cross examination 
she stated that her husband left home with a cavalry pistol in his pooket, 
which was found ten feet from his body. 

  B.B. Dumville, C.W. Lassiter and Dr. T.E. Cropper, members of the Coroner's 
jury, were then examined at length, testifying the position of body when 
found, the supposed relative positions of the murderer and murdered, the spot 
where the ball entered and range of ball.  The evidence of these witnesses on 
some points was contradictory.  Messrs. W.S. Holland and Meritt Briggs, 
counsel for defense and prosecution respectively, had several spats about the 
admissibility of certain statements. 

  George W. Barnawell, one of the Commonwealth's witnesses, was under the 
influence of liquor and made himself rather conspicuous.  He was ejected from 
the room by the Sheriff before being called to the stand.  John Cartwright was 
called and asked if Urquhart had over confessed the killing to him.  Witness 
answered in the negative, at first, and later said he did not remember; said 
he was related to accused by marriage. 

  The strongest witness for the Commonwealth and the most damaging to the 
defendant was F.N. Gray, who testified reluctantly, saying tbe father of the 
accused had been a great friend to him.  He stated that Urquhart had confessed 
the killing of Gray in a private conversation, saying that it was done in self 
defense. 

  After short argument by counsel the case was submitted to the Mayor, who 
sent it on to the grand jury.  Motion for bail was argued at length and 
refused, and the prisoner committed to await the grand jury's action.  The 
unusual circumstances attending this case, the lapse of time since the 
commission of the crime and the voluntary surrender of the accused, after an 
absence of nearly a quarter of a century have attracted intense local 
interest.  Many persons had forgotten the murder, while a great many more had 
never heard of it till the murderer's return from his long wonderings.  Those 
who knew of the circumstances had supposed Urquhart to be dead years ago.  It 
is said that detectives followed him for months after his departure, but he 
was never arrested. 


****************************************************************************** 

SUFFOLK LOCAL. 
[...] 

  NANSEMOND COUNTY COURT - The regular August term of Nansemond County Court 
convened yesterday, Judge H.J. Kilby presiding. 

  The grand jury, Isaac W. Everett, foreman, retired to their room with 
witnesses, and after a lengthy session reported the following true bills: 
William J. Urquhart, murder; Andrew Garvis, housebreaking; Junius Davis, 
maiming; Charles Ward, housebreaking. 

  Andrew Garris was tried by a petit jury for housebreaking, found guilty 
and sentenced to five years in the penitentiary. 

  Junius Davis was tried for maiming, fined $10 and sentenced to ten days in 
jail. 

  The noted case of William J. Urquhart for murder committed twenty-four years 
ago, will be called at 10:30 to-day.  The case against Charles Ward is set for 
Friday. 


****************************************************************************** 

URQUHART MURDER TRIAL 
          ____________ 

One of the Most Interesting in the History of Nansemond. 
          ____________ 

Wm. G. [sic] Urquhart on Trial, Charged 
With the Murder of John E. Gay 
   at Magnolia Springs Nearly 
     Twenty-Five Years Ago. 
         The Evidence. 
          ____________ 

Special Dispatch to The Virginian. 

  SUFFOLK, Va., August 13. - One of the most interesting trials in the history 
of Nansemond county is now in progress here.  That of William J. Urquhart, 
charged with the murder of John E. Gay near the latter's residence at Maguolia 
Springs, four miles from Suffolk, on Tuesday, November 8th, 1870, nearly a 
quarter of a century ago.  The alleged murderer after twenty-four years 
absence returnied to the home of his father, delivered himself to the 
authorities and asked that he be accorded a trial.  On Thursday, July 25th, 
1865, he voluntarily surrendered to the Sheriff, had a preliminary hearing 
before Mayor Brewer, was sent on to the grand jury which indicted him Monday. 

  The trial was set to be called yesterday at 10:30 a.m., and some time prior 
to that hour the temple of justice, in which the man's fate is to be decided, 
was crowded almost to suffocation by expectant citizens of this and adjoining 
counties.  A very vexatious delay was experienced in the beginning because of 
the absence of certain witnesses, one of whom was sent for at his home, 
several miles in the county.  During the interval in which witnesses were 
being collected the fanning, perspiring, sweltering mass of humanity in the 
courthouse clung to their positions of vantage with pertinent tenacity for 
fear of permanently losing them in case of temporary relinquishment. 

  Finally about 1 p.m. both sides - Commonwealth's Attorney E.E. Holland and 
Meritt Briggs for the prosecution, and Judge John Neeley, of Norfolk, and W.S. 
Holland, of Windsor, for the defense - announced themselves ready for 
procedure, the prisoner at the bar stood up and Deputy Clerk Gomer read the 
indictment, to which accused pleaded not guilty.  Out of a venire of eighteen 
jurors, of which two were pronounced incompetant, and four were stricken off 
by the defense, the following were empaneled: Willis A. Austin, John L. 
Benton, L. Parker Brinkley, James Brittain, Frederick Brinkley, W.H. Brothers, 
J.W. Howell, W.Q. Peel, H.S. Dowdy, John T. Rawles, R. Frank Rogers and Bruce 
Smith. 

  Before proceeding with the witnesses court adjourned till 2:30 p.m., at 
which time the witnesses were sworn and the charge read to the jury in 
substance as follows: If they find the prisoner guilty of murder in the first 
degree say so and no more; second degree, term of imprisonment in the 
penitentiary from five to eighteen years; voluntary manslaughter, penitentiary 
from one to five years; involuntary manslaughter, county jail not more than 
twelve months and a fine not to exceed $500. 

  On motion of Judge Neely all witnesses were excluded except the one on the 
stand.  Mrs. John E, Gay, widow of the murdered man, testified that her 
husband left home at 5 a.m. on November 8th, 1870, which was the last time she 
saw him alive, for Isle of Wight county with a load of corn.  She next saw him 
at 4 p.m, 100 yards from the lot gate dead, with bullet wound on left side, 
whip clasped in hand and pistol lying ten feet from body.  He had left home 
with pistol, which was of the cavalry make and a six shooter.  She heard 
pistol shot in morning ten minutes after husband's departure. 

  On cross examination, she said she remained with body from 4 to 7 o'clock 
when Coroner's jury arrived.  The pistol had not been discharged but two caps 
were missing.  Her husband had only a few pennies in his pocket.  On redirect 
examination witness stated that she had not seen accused since her husband's 
death till the preliminary hearing. 

  C.W. Lassiter, a member of the Coroner'a jury, was then placed upon the 
stand, and stated he saw Gay's body on day of death, lying fifty yards from 
gate with right hand thrown forward and left hand under him; whip was two feet 
distant and pistol six or eight feet away, 

  Witness examined wound, which was on left side and ranged upward; said 
pistol was not discharged, and that all the caps were missing.  On cross 
examination he said the pistol was twelve to fourteen inches long.  Mr. W.S. 
Holland here produced an old cavalry pistol, which witness declared was 
similar to the one carried by Gay; said body was doubled with legs drawn up. 

  Dr. Thomas E. Cropper was then called.  He did not know Gay; saw Urquhart 
once; was summoned on coroner's jury by late Thomas Kilby; was a graduate of 
Philadelphia College and had been a practicing physician; examined wound which 
entered on left side between fifth and sixth or sixth and seventh ribs and 
ranged upward through the heart; assisted Dr. J.T. Kilby at autopsy and the 
said wound caused death.  He was not cross-examined. 

  August Weaver, who said he was a farm hand who lived near Magnolia in 1870, 
testified that he was up very early on day of murder and heard a pistol shot; 
did not know by whom or at whom fired. 

  Luther Bradshaw said he was from Isle of Wight county and accompanied 
undertaker Johnson to scene of murder on following day; saw where body lay and 
said weeds were trampled down in adjacent fence corner as if some one had been 
standing there. 

  F.N. Guy, to whom prisoner confessed the killing, said be had conversation 
with accused several weeks ago; was friendly to him as his father had been 
kind to witness, asked him about the trouble.  Urquhart told him that he had 
given Gay note to collect; money was collected and spent; asked Gay about 
money; said he would pay it; when Gay moved away was warned that he had best 
make the money before his departure; promised to pay on the day of killing; 
some one called him up and said Gay was moving, went to see him immediately, 
and found him leaving; asked him about money; Gay became angered; hot words 
ensued; Gay reached for pistol, and accused thinking his life in dangered, 
pulled his weapon and fired first; immediately left, and did not know then 
whether shot was fatal; accused had been absent since killing along the 
borders of Texas and Mexico. 

  Capt. E.C. Ramsey, a merchant of Chuckatuck, said accused had talked with 
him about shooting.  His evidence was substantially the same as that of 
previous witness, being Urquhart's confession and plea of self defense.  The 
Commonwealth here rested its case. 

  During the examination of witnesses there were many lively tilts and 
colloquys between the attorneys as to form of questions and the legal 
admissibility of evidence.  The counsel for defense fought with determination 
and ability, and won their point in nearly every instance.  Every inch of 
ground is being warmly contested by both sides. 

  Court adjourned just before 6 o'clock till 10:30 to-day, warning counsel and 
witnesses to be promptly on hand.  The prisoner at the bar, whose white locks 
and wrinkled visage bespeak suffering and exposure, will take the stand to-
day, and to say that the populace will hear his statements with interest but 
mildly expresses it.  The evidence yesterday is generally considered to be 
more favorable to accused than that at the preliminary hearing. 

  The case in many respects is one of the most remarkable on the court records 
of the State.  Soon after the murdered man was found, suspicion pointed to Mr. 
Cartwright, father of Mr. John Cartwright, who now lives near Sleepy Hole. 

  He was arraigned on the charge, tried for his life and acquitted. 
Urquhart's continued absence from the community was suspicious and the public 
then began to accuse him of the killing.  As years rolled on he was regarded 
as dead and his return and surrender were a surprise to the community.  A 
large reward was offered for his capture and notwithstanding detective 
vigilance of a most active nature he was never apprehended.  It is not thought 
that the jury will impose a severe penalty. 


****************************************************************************** 

THE SUFFOLK MURDER TRIAL 
          ____________ 

The Jury Failed to Agree on a Verdict Last Night. 
          ____________ 

Placed in the Custody of the Sheriff Until To-Day. 
  Judge Neely's Speech. 
   Intense Interest Manifested in the Trial. 
    The Prisoner Bears Up Well. 
          ____________ 

Special Dispatch to the Virginian. 

  Suffolk, Va., August 14. - The remarkable case of the Commonwealth vs. 
William J. Urquhart for the murder of John E. Gay on November 8, 1870, was to-
day continued in the County Court of Nansemond, Judge W.J. Kilby, presiding. 
The Judge rapped for order promptly at 10:30 o'clock, at which time the 
counsel, jury and an immense crowd of spectators composed of representatives 
from the several occupations and professions, and including a number of 
ministers of the gospel had collected.  The prisoner was ushered in and walked 
with a steady step and firm nerve, notwithstanding the fact that he was 
entering a tribunal which was to decide his life or death, liberty or 
incarceration, exoneration or condemnatiou by a jury of his peers.  He was 
attired in a new suit of blue cheviot and took a seat in the rear near the 
rail where he was soon surrounded by friends and relatives. 

  As is remembered the Commonwealth concluded the examination of witnesses 
yesterday and rested its case.  The crowd to-day expected to hear the 
testimony of the aged prisoner, his statement of the killing, which was 
testified to in his confession to other witnesses, his experience as a 
fugitive and reason for surrender, but such was not the case.  As immediately 
after the jury roll call Mr. W.S. Holland, for the defense, stated that they 
would put on no witnesses. 

  The question of the Court's instructions to the jury was then introduced, 
and after a mutual understanding between the counsel, it was decided that they 
could be quietly discussed and submitted without the jury's retirement.  Both 
sides had prepared instructions, and after some eliminations and additions, 
the following were agreed on, tbe first five of which were submitted by the 
defense and the last by the prosecution: 

  No. 1. The law presumes every person charged with crime to be innocent until 
his guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt; and the presumption of 
innocence goes with the prisoner through tbe entire case, and applies at every 
stage thereof; and, if after hearing the whole case such reasonable doubt 
exist as to any one point necessary to the establishment of the prisoner's 
guilt, they must find him not guilty. 

  No. 2. That upon the trial of this case if a reasonable doubt of any fact 
necessary to establish the prisoner's guilt as charged in the indictment be 
raised by evidence, such doubt is decisive and the jury must acquit the 
prisoner, since a verdict of not guilty means no more than that the guilt of 
the accused has not been demonstrated on the precise, specific and narrow 
forms prescribed by the law. 

  No. 3.-That if, upon the whole evidence in the case, there is any rational 
hypothesis consistent with the conclusion that the killing of Gay was 
excusable or justifiable, they must find the prisoner not guilty. 

  No. 4. That if the Commonwealth uses the declaration of tbe accused to prove 
the killing she must take the whole together, and cannot select one part and 
leave another, and if there be either no evidence in the case or no other 
evidence incompatible with it, the declaration so adduced in evidence must be 
taken to be true. 

  No. 5. That if the jury believe from the evidence that the accused shot and 
killed the deceased, and that at the time of the fatal shot the deceased had 
first drawn from his person or clothing a pistol, which he had in his hand, 
and that the accused, judging from the circumstances as they appeared to him, 
then and there had reasonable cause to fear being killed or suffering some 
great bodily harm, they should acquit the accused, and they should acquit him 
even if they further believe that said pistol in the hand of the deceased was 
not loaded or was not capped, for the accused had the right to judge for 
himself as to the extent of the danger from circumstances as they appeared to 
him. 

  No. 6-If the jury shall believe from the evidence that the necessity for 
killing, relied upon by the prisoner, arose out of his own misconduct, then 
such necessity cannot be relied upon by him to justify the killing. 

  During the interim, while instructions were being prepared, a part of the 
counsel and some of the spectators were engaged in reading to-day'a VIRGINIAN. 

  After instructions were all in the argument was begun, Mr. Merritt Briggs 
opening the case for tbe prosecution, As is the custom he congratulated the 
jury that they were nearing the end of a remarkable case.  He said he was 
employed in the case to assist the Commonwealth's Attorney, for which he said 
there was no apology to offer and by whom it mattered not; he would at all 
events attempt to perform his duty, although a painful one it might be.  He 
appealed that the jury should reach a calm, deliberate conclusion, that they 
had sworn to "well and truly try and a true deliverance make.'' 

  He mentioned the widow and children of the victim and asked tbe jury not to 
let sympathy or the grey hairs of the accused iufluence the verdict.  He 
outlined the testimony and confession and discussed the justifiability of the 
killing.  "If human blood," said he, "has been spilled in self defense, which 
is a God given principal, then acquit the prisoner, but if not in self defense 
the accused must be punished as directed by law."  He closed with a beautiful 
effort and told the jury that whatever their verdict be he would believe they 
had acted conscientiously.  Fifty minutes was consumed with his speech. 

  Next came Mr. W.S. Holland, the gifted pleader from Old Isle of Wight, who, 
with his pardonable modesty, said be neither had the mental ability nor the 
physical strength to make an impassioned plea like Briggs, but would proceed 
in an ordinury manner.  Before the conclusion of his address, however, which 
lasted two hours and twenty minutes, his entire audience was convinced that 
his opening statement had been contradicted as far as ability and eloquence 
went.  In an earnest and logical manner he reviewed in detail the entire 
evidence and surrounding circumstances, dissecting and weakening the damaging 
part, emphasizing and connecting that portion favorable to his client, at 
times growing eloquent and then relaxing into a conversational tone, always 
interesting and logical and framing his language within the jury's 
comprehension.  He cautioned the jury as to the importance of their position, 
saying that no judge, jurist, high official nor king had a more important duty 
to perform. 

  He pleaded that an unjust verdict would wither and blacken a life and send a 
soul to perdition - a soul unprepared to meet its God - and would cast a cloud 
upon the lives of living relatives; that the prosecution relied upon evidence 
transacted twenty five years ago, that memory was treacherous, language 
ambiguous, prejudice and bias uncertain.  He ridiculed some of Mr. Briggs' 
statements, placed emphasis on the court's instructions and declared that the 
prisoner must be deemed guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to secure conviction, 
and that a preponderance of evidence as in a civil case would not suffice in a 
criminal case.  Thanking the jury for attention he closed at 2:30 p.m., 
whereupon court took recess till 3:30. 

  On reconvening the crowd was aware that Judge Neely would speak, and knowing 
his reputation, they had assembled in larger numbers than at the morning 
session, if possible, those who could not obtain admission gathering in knots 
around the green near the windows, and they were not disappointed.  He said on 
beginning that his colleague but left little for him to do, having covered all 
the ground.  He however found a good deal to talk about which be did in a very 
able manner, following closely the law and evidence and expressing his 
thoughts in most elegant language, some of which was considered rather too 
erudite to be entirely comprehensible to some of the jury and spectators. 

  He said Mr. Briggs had failed to specify any degree of homicide of which 
accused should be convicted, and here asked Mr. E.E. Holland, who was to 
conclude the argument, what degree of murder he should allege.  The latter 
replied that it would take an hour, and that he would let him know when he 
made his plea.  He said there was prejudice in the case; that the sympathies 
and lacerated feelings of friends of deceased had recently been wrought up to 
new degrees of sensibility after twenty-five years of dormancy; that the 
Commonwealth had been paralyzed on the threshold of the case for a motive, 
without which there could be no rational answer for the commission of crime; 
that there existed no previous malice, and that self defense was paramount to 
all other laws in earthly relations; that if the jury believed a part of the 
confession they should believe all; that he would not convict a stump tail, 
yellow dog on such evidence as had been adduced. 

  The Judge closed by offering a tribute to the research, learning and ecumen 
of his associate, and asked the jury if they would add to the 25 years of 
forced absence from his wife, children and friends, and impose a sentence 
which would brand his client a murderer and transmit infamy to his posterity. 
He occupied one hour and twenty minutes. 

  Judge Neely, on closing, immediately left for the depot and his position was 
filled by Commonwealth's Attorney E.E. Holland, who closed the argument by a 
very able, eloquent and comprehensive discourse, lasting an hour and a 
quarter.  He said he felt embarrassed and labored under difficulties in 
answering two such eloquent and ingenious gentlemen as his predecessors. 

  "There was a tragedy," he proceeded, "committed in Nansemond county twenty 
five years ago.  A man was leaving his home before day on a peaceful mission. 
Shortly afterward a single pistol shot was heard and at 4 o'clock in the 
afternoon the man, John E. Gay, was found murdered by the roadside, cold and 
stiff in death." 

  The details of the tragedy, Urquhart's flight and subsequent surrender were 
reviewed in detail.  He stated that it was not incumbent on the Commonwealth 
to offer a theory or motive; however, he would show a motive, a preparation 
and an opportunity for murder, which would be justified by the prisoner's 
after conduct. 

  He said the position of victim with whip in hand and pistol ten feet away 
dispelled the theory that he had drawn the weapon; that a complete chain of 
circumstancial evidence clinched by a confession had been shown and that a 
chain had been forged by the prisoner at the bar.  He asked that the justice 
be accorded the dead as well as the living and concluded bv drawing a vivid 
picture of the tragedy, and asked that the jury discharge their sworn duty as 
he had attempted to perform his. 

  The case was given to the jury shortly after 6 o'clock, and after being 
confined to their room for about two hours reported that they could not arrive 
at a verdict to-night.  They were placed in charge of the Sheriff with 
instructious from the Judge that they would be held till to-morrow to 
ascertain if a verdict could be reached after a night's deliberation. 

  The intense interest in the case increases every hour.  The trial is 
rehearsed on the street corners a dozen times a day, and not much else is 
talked of.  A hundred or more verdicts have already been named by the public. 
        _____________________ 


****************************************************************************** 

URQUHART FOUND GUILTY 
          ___________ 

Sentenced to Five Years Imprisonment For Murder in 1870. 
He Displayed Remarkable Nerve For a Man of His Age. 
 How the Verdict Was Received. 
  No Appeal Will Be Taken. 
   The Crime. 
          ___________ 

Special Dispatch to The Virginian.  

  Suffolk, Va., August 15. - The jury in the noted case of the Commonwealth 
vs. William J. Urqubart, for the murder of John E. Gay, on November 8th, 1870, 
to-day rendered their verdict, after a night's deliberation, finding the 
accused guilty of murder in the second degree, and ascertaining his punishment 
at five years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. 

  The jury, who were unable to agree last night, and who were, in the custody 
of the Sheriff at the Commercial Hotel, were taken to their room in the 
courthouse early in the morning, and when Judge Kilby called the court to 
order at 10:30 o'clock it was announced that the jury had reached a verdict. 
The jurors wore filed in their box and the verdict was handed to Deputy Clerk 
Garner.  The prisoner at the bar was asked to rise, while amidst intense 
suspense and death like stillness, the following verdict was read in clearly 
enunciated tones: "We, the jury, find the prisoner guilty of murder in the 
second degree, and fix his punishment at five years in the penitentiary." 

  All eyes were turned on the accused, who did not change his expression nor 
move a muscle.  He was as stolid and unconcerned as the most listeless 
spectator.  In fact, during tbe entire trial he has retained a remarkable 
nerve and bearing and has never evinced, so far as detected, the slightest 
emotion nor fear. 

  Mr. W.S. Holland, of counsel for defense, asked the court to be allowed half 
an hour in which to consult with friends and relatives of the prisoner as to 
moving for a new trial.  The request was granted, and after a conference on 
the court green Mr. Holland asked to be allowed to retire to an upper room in 
company with the accused.  Accordingly Mr. Holland, Mr. A.B. Seldner, of the 
firm of Nealy, Seldner & Warrington, of Norfolk, the prisoner and friends were 
closeted, where they remained in secret consultation till nearly 1 o'clock, or 
about three hours.  On returning Mr. Holland addressed the court, stating that 
they had been detained longer than was anticipated; that his only excuse was 
that the question discussed was of grave and vital importance.  Their decision 
was to accept the verdict, and no motion would be made. 

  The prisoner was told to stand up, was reminded by the court of the verdict 
alleging guilt and fixing a penalty, and was asked if he had anything to say. 
He firmly replied: "Not a word," and was forthwith sentenced to spend five 
years in the penitentiary, to be treated and occupied in the manner prescribed 
by law.  After being remanded to jail he weakened considerably when, with full 
force, he began to realize the penalty, the term of which, considering his 
already advanced years and enfeebled constitution, he cannot more than expect 
to survive. 

  Owing to the preferences, sympathies and prejudices of the local public, a 
considerable portion of which is connected with the family of the prisoner or 
his victim, either by relationship or friendship, it is very difficult to 
ascertain the popular acceptation of the verdict.  Many persons hold that, 
taking the theory of self-defense adduced and the period of painful exile into 
consideration, the penalty should have been lighter; while others equally as 
sincere think the crime a heinous one, which should have been punished more 
severely, while still others claim that the victim was shot from ambush and 
should suffer the death penalty. 

  After talking with several of the jury-men, including the foreman, relative 
to their standing when first retiring, we learn that they were this way: Three 
for acquittal, one for voluntary manslaughter, six for murder in the second 
degree and two for murder in the first degree.  The result, as in all cases, 
which are submitted to decision of twelve men, was necessarily a compromise. 

  The members of the jury are from a section of tbe county remote from the 
scene of the crime, are men of good judgment and high character, and their 
verdict by most unprejudiced minds is considered just and equitable.  Eleven 
of the jurors are members of the church, while the twelfth has professed 
religion, but never joined the church.  None of them are drinking men. 

  The most damaging part of the evidence in tbe jury's opinion, and that which 
weakened the prisoner's confession and plea of self defense through witnesses 
Ramsey and Gray, was the statement that accused left his victim without 
knowing the result of his shot, went home and retired to bed after 5 o'clock 
in the morning.  They also emphasized the statement that the whip was found 
near the victim's right hand, while the pistol was behind him, which weakened 
the plea that Gay had drawn his weapon when shot by Urquhart.  The impression 
still remains to some extent tbat Urquhart was hired to commit the crime by 
Marmaduke Cartright, who it is claimed, had threatened Gay. 

  The victim's brother says that Urquhart and Gay were the best of friends, 
and that Urquhart was a visitor to Gay's house the day before the tragedy. 

  With to-day's verdict and sentence ends one of the most notable and 
remarkable trials in the annals of the courts of this section.  A murderer 
after nearly twenty-five years' of voluntary exile from home and friends 
voluntarily surrenders to the authorities, is tried for his crime by a jury of 
his peers und accorded a term of punishment, which be received with stoical 
nerve, despite his age and weakness. 


"Norfolk Virginian," Vol. 50, No. 56, July 26, 1895, p. 5, col. 3; 
"Norfolk Virginian," Vol. 50, No. 71, Aug. 13 1895, p. 3; 
"Norfolk Virginian," Vol. 50, No. 70 [sic; 72], Aug. 14, 1895, p. 1, col. 1; 
"Norfolk Virginian," Vol. 50, No. 73, Aug. 15, 1895, p. 1, col. 1-2; 
"Norfolk Virginian," Vol. 50, No. 74, Aug. 16, 1895, p. 1, col. 4-5 


William James URQUHART (1838-1927) is buried in Hollywood Cemetery, Richmond. 
   (Find a Grave Mem. #13495919) 

He was born in Isle of Wight Co., and died at the Soldiers' Home in Richmond. 

His parents, John & Hannah (SHIVERS GODWIN) URQUHART, are marked in 
   Newman Memorial Cemetery, Oakland Christian Church, Chuckatuck. 
   (Find a Grave Mems. #26635551 & #157977204) 

GAY, b. 1835, was also a Confederate veteran; sketches of their service 
   records are posted at: 
   http://files.usgwarchives.net/va/nansemond/military/civilwar/cw_vets.txt 

His daughter Margaret (URQUHART; Mrs. Sidney M.) CRUMPLER (1870-1959) 
   lived in Norfolk for a time, and is buried in Whitehead's Grove Baptist 
   Church Cemetery. Isle of Wight County Historical Society {IWCHS} 
   Grave Site Survey Task Force {GSSTF} report #73: 
   http://www.iwchs.com/Cemetery-Reports.html 

William m. Margaret "Maggie" CARTWRIGHT JACKSON, daughter of Marmadule & Nancy 
   CARTWRIGHT, 27 Dec 1866, in Nansemond Co. 


Contributed for use in the USGenWeb Archives by 
File Manager Matt Harris (zoobug64@aol.com). 

file at: 
http://files.usgwarchives.net/va/nansemond/news/18950726nv.txt