Southampton County-Petersburg City Virginia USGenWeb Archives News.....Indictments, 1880 ************************************************ Copyright. All rights reserved. http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm http://www.usgwarchives.net/va/vafiles.htm ************************************************ Jacob P. DAVIS, convicted 1880, for fraud; William H. POND, indicted Oct 1880, for intimidating witness, acquitted 24 Nov 1880; Justice David H. KINDRED, indicted Oct 1880, for intimidating witness charges dropped 10 Dec 1880 "The Jeffersonian Republican" (Charlottesville, VA), Wed., Aug. 25, 1880 (Vol. 8, No. 19) p. 2, col. 1 The outrage mill of the Baltimore "American" is at work in Virginia. It has ground out beautiful grist in the outrageous whipping of a negro in Southampton. The negro, it seems, had informed on a white man for selling liquor in violation of the United States revenue laws, and being subsequently tried and found guilty, on the charge of another negro for getting goods under false pretences, was sentenced to receive thirty-nine lashes. Out of the legal punishment for a crime the "American" doctors up a blood-curdling Southern outrage. It has descended to the sphere of the New York "Tribune." [...] "Alexandria (VA) Gazette," Wed., Aug. 25, 1880, (Vol. 81, No. 199) p. 2, col. 2 NEWS OF THE DAY. [...] The outrage mill has been started - a negro man who was whipped for obtaining goods under false pretenses in Southampton county is the victim. The warrant was issued at the instance of a colored man. [...] "The (Richmond, VA) Daily Dispatch," Thurs., Sep. 16, 1880, p. 1, col. 5 HABEAS CORPUS ORDERED.- Judge Hughes has ordered a writ of habeas corpus certificandum to be issued, to be directed to the jailer of Southampton county, commanding him to bring before United States Commissioner Gallagher, at Petersburg, on Saturday the 18th of September, 1880, J.P. Davis (who is now in custody, serving out a sentence of the State Court), to testify in the case of the United States vs. William H. Pond. The jailer is also commanded to return to the jail of Southampton the said J.P. Davis as soon as his testimony before the Commissioner is concluded. The marshal sent the writ down on yesterday. [...] "The (Richmond, VA) Daily Dispatch," Thurs., Sep. 16, 1880, p. 1, col. 5 HABEAS CORPUS ORDERED.- Judge Hughes has ordered a writ of habeas corpus certificandum to be issued, to be directed to the jailer of Southampton county, commanding him to bring before United States Commissioner Gallagher, at Petersburg, on Saturday the 18th of September, 1880, J.P. Davis (who is now in custody, serving out a sentence of the State Court), to testify in the case of the United States vs. William H. Pond. The jailer is also commanded to return to the jail of Southampton the said J.P. Davis as soon as his testimony before the Commissioner is concluded. The marshal sent the writ down on yesterday. [...] "The (Richmond, VA) Daily Dispatch," Sun., Sep. 19, 1880, p. 3, col. 1 PETERSBURG. REVENUE RECEIPTS AND TOBACCO EXPORTS - READJUSTER MASS-MEETING - SHIPMENT OF MEAL - DIVINES ON A DEER-HUNT - AN INTERESTING CASE - PROSECUTION FOR ALLEGED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE - THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. [Correspondence of the Richmond Dispatch.] SEPTEMBER 18, 1880. [...] A case of considerable interest is to come before United-States-Commissioner Gallagher this afternoon. In July last William H. Pond, a citizen of Southampton county, was brought before the Commissioner on the charge of violating the United States revenue laws. The main witness against him was one J.P. Davis (colored). During the progress of the examination Pond swore out a warrant for the arrant of Davis, charging him with having obtained goods from him under false pretences. Davis was arrested and placed in jail, and in his subsequent appearance before the Commissioner, having failed to give bond to answer the warrant, was attended by an officer. Pond was sent on for trial at the October term of the court, and Davis was subsequently sent to Southampton county to be tried under the warrant. On this charge he was acquitted, but being arrested on another charge was convicted and punished. Pond was sent on to the United States Court for indictment and trial. Bail was fixed at $1,500. This is the case that has recently been blazoned forth through the Radical press of the North with the view, no doubt, of making political capital. A short time ago, on complaint and oath by Colonel James D. Brady, Commissioner Gallagher issued a warrant for the arrest of W.H. Pond, charging that the said Pond did in July last "corruptly endeavor to obstruct and impede the due administration of justice in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern district of Virginia by corruptly swearing out a warrant of arrest for one J.P. Davis, he being then and there a witness for the United States in a complaint against the said Pond for a violation of the internal-revenue laws of the United States, now pending in the District Court of the United States at Richmond; and that said Pond well knew that there was no ground for the issuing of said warrant, and that the same was caused to be issued and executed by him with intent to deter the said Davis from testifying as a witness, or to unlawfully influence his testimony in said case, now pending in the aforesaid court." Davis was brought to this city to-day by Deputy-Marshal Caldwell from Southampton county jail on a "habeas corpus" issued by Judge Hughes, and all the witnesses in the case are in the city. District-Attorney Lewis is present to represent the prosecution, and Messrs. Bernard and Lyon will defend the accused. The case attracts a good deal of interest. [...] "The (Richmond, VA) Daily Dispatch," Tues., Sep. 21, 1880, p. 3, col. 1-2 Richmond Dispatch. TUESDAY...SEPTEMBER 21, 1880. PETERSBURG. THE SOUTHAMPTON CASE - POND SENT ON FOR CORRUPTLY ENDEAVORING TO IMPEDE THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE UNITED STATES COURT - THE EVIDENCE IN BRIEF - REMARKABLE STORY OF HOW A NEGRO WAS TREATED, AND ITS EMPHATIC DENIAL - OTHER ITEMS. [Correspondence of the Richmond Dispatch.] SEPTEMBER 20, 1880. At the time my last letter was written the case of William H. Pond, a citizen of Southampton county, charged with corruptly "endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due administration of justice in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia," had not come before the United States commisioner in this city for examination. The gist of the charge is that Pond corruptly swore out a warrant for the arrest of one Jacob P. Davis (colored), who was at the time a witness against him for a violation of the internal-revenue laws, the examination of which was in progress before the commissioner, and the result of which examination was that Pond was sent on to the grand jury of the United States Court on the 5th of October. The warrant for Pond's arrest alleged that at the time he swore out the warrant he well knew there was no ground for it, and that he caused it to be issued with the intent to deter Davis from testifying as a witness, or to unlawfully influence his testimony in the case now pending in the court. In my letter I gave the facts touching the issuance of the warrant against Davis, of its dismissal by Justice Kindred, of Southampton county, of the arrest and conviction of Davis on a second warrant, and his punishment by stripes and imprisonment in jail. The justice in this city who issued the warrant for Davis's arrest stated before the commissioner that he did so upon the sworn statement of W.H. Pond that Davis had obtained from him money and goods under false pretences; that by reason of Pond's statement,after careful investigation, he believed there was just cause to suspect a crime had been committed; that Pond alleged at the time that Davis had run away from the county and was in this city attending as a witness, but made no mention of his being a witness against himself. Mr. David H. Kindred, of Southampton county, testified that he was the justice of the peace before whom Davis was brought on the warrant issued in Petersburg; that he dismissed said warrant on the ground, not because the charge was frivolous, but because the intent to steal at the time Davis obtained the goods was not proven; and that Pond had not exercised due precaution in crediting Davis. Pond had a lien upon Davis's crop for payment of the goods furnished him; that Davis had run off before cultivating the crops. After dismissal of this warrant a second warrant was sworn out by one William Myrick (colored), charging that Davis did, by false pretence, cause the complainant to stand security for him for the payment of a debt of $18 due a Mr. Vaughan at Boykin's depot for goods obtained; that Pond was present at this trial and testified that Davis had deserted his crops before obtaining these goods. On his trial Davis was convicted and sentenced to stripes and imprisonment. The Justice, in answer to questions by District- Attorney Lewis, stated that he was not aware the law had been changed so as to prohibit both stripes and imprisonment for petit larceny, and that he thought he had, under the Code, full authority for issuing the warrant upon which Davis was tried. [It seems that Davis's promise to Myrick had until November 1st to be satisfied.] William Myrick (colored), upon whose oath Mr. Kindred issued the warrant against Davis, testified that he never knew Davis until last year, and never had any transactions with him until he went security for him for the payment of the debt of $18. Davis agreed save him from any loss by agreeing to give him a certain amount of cotton. He still holds this agreement, and the debt of $18 has not been paid. Davis gave him an order on Pond for some money (or goods), saying that Pond was in debt to him. When the order was presented to Pond, the latter said he owed Davis nothing, but that, on the contrary, Davis owed him. Witness had several interviews with Pond, but was never told by him that he wanted to prevent Davis from testifying against him, or said anything to induce him to believe that such was the case. Pond advised witness to carry the paper before Justice Kindred, and his object in doing so was to get his money and not to prosecute him for crime. The next witness put upon the stand was the man J.P. Davis, who was allowed to tell his story in full, and a very remarkable statement it was - remarkable, indeed, that, happening as the alleged events did, in the county of Southampton, noted for the refinement of its people, it is not believed by many who have heard and read it. Davis said he was suffering very much from the effects of the whipping inflicted upon him by order of the Court. He went to Southampton last January from Warren county, N.C. He rented a farm from Mr. Pond, and was to give him $40, or a bale of cotton weighing 400 pounds, for it. He got his supplies from Pond, but not the full amount of the bills of sale he gave Pond. During his absence Pond went to his house with some others and threatened and drove his wife away. Witness had asked Pond if he had a license to sell whiskey, at which he got mad. I then went to Norfolk, as advised, and gave information that Pond was selling tobacco and brandy, and asked if he had a license. Finding that he had none, I came to Petersburg and informed the United States officers here. While here I asked if anything had been heard from my wife, who had been run away from home, and heard that she was in North Carolina. I made complaint against Pond, and was summoned to Petersburg to testify. Pond did not know about this, and did not see him until he got here. He did not say anything to me, but I heard him say to others, "O, let him work - we'll have him down in Southampton." This was before the trial, near the door of the custom-house. I was called out by the officers, who invited me off a little way, when they suddenly clamped handcuffs upon me and took me to jail, saying, 'We got you now; we couldn't take you in the house." Davis then told the story of his subsequent treatment and sufferings. After being kept in jail here for some days, he was tied and taken by a constable to the jail in Suffolk, thence to Southampton jail, and thence to Boykin's for trial. He was tied all the time be was travelling. When he got to Boykin's Pond and Kindred were there. The latter remarked to him, "Hello, United States marshal. You got back here. You haven't got any United States marshals with you now, and when we get through with you, you won't tell any one if you see them selling a thousand barrels of whiskey." Pond said to Justice Kindred he wanted him to send me to the penitentiary, but Kindred said Pond did not have the proper papers for that. Was tied during the trial. After the dismissal of the Petersburg warrant Kindred said he would now enter on old Myrick's case; that he would get me on that. Pond wanted me sent to the penitentiary, but Kindred said he would have me whipped and sent to jail, and the revenue men would never bother about me. I told Kindred I was sick, and asked not to be whipped. I was turned over to the constable with the order for thirty-nine lashes. He cut a handfull of hickory-switches, and then cut more, pulled off my clothes, tied me, drew me up so that my feet just touched the ground, and whipped me. After receiving thirty-nine lashes Pond said that eighteen more were due me. I was then taken to Southampton jail to serve out my imprisonment. My wrists were cut with the ropes and my back bleeding from the lashes. The man at the jail pulled the splinters and sticks from the broken hickories out of my back. They thought I was going to die, and they sent off for a doctor. Heard the doctor say if I did not get worse to let him know, and he would fix me. While in jail I was shot at twice. The first shot was fired through the window, the ball lodging in the plank ceiling. It has been removed, and the jailer says he is going to whltewash it to hide the hole. I was told to say nothing about this, and was removed down to the dungeon. Here some one tried again to shoot me by running a gun through the window and placing the muzzle at my heart. I dodged or fell back to keep from being killed. Had to call for half an hour before any one answered. When I was taken from the jail to be brought to Petersburg I was warned to say but little, as I was going to be taken back to the county. Pond said that money had been promised by different parties to be given to Mr. Kindred, to send me to the penitentiary. Mr. Kindred, after bearing the statement of Davis, swore positively and emphatically that the statement was false - the whole of it false. He had told Davis on the trial if he could arrange matters with old man Myrick he would discharge him. The counsel for defence asked that the case might be continued until a future day, in order that witnesses might be summoned to disprove Davis's statement. But Mr. Lewis stated that it would be very inconvenient for him to return to Petersburg again. Counsel asked for this continuance in the interests of justice and humanity, but it was deemed best to finish the case before the commisioner at this sitting. Pond was sent under the warrant to answer an indictment by the grand jury of the United States Court on the 5th of October, and his bail, at first fixed at $2,000, was reduced to $1,500. He is now in the jail in this city awaiting the arrival of his sureties. Davis is also in jail, but it is understood an application will be made to- day to the judge of Southampton county for a writ of habeas corpus with a view to asking his discharge. It is thought that steps will be taken by the United States authorities, or by Davis, to prosecute Justice Kindred for illegally sentencing Davis. When the case comes up in court the facts will doubtless all be brought out. The roof of the wooden tobacco-factory on Washington street occupied by B.B. Vaughan caught fire twice to-day and was considerably damaged. Fully insured. Mrs. Louisa T. Hamlin, an aged widow lady, died to-day after a brief sickness. ROBIN ADAIR. [...] "The (Richmond, VA) Daily Dispatch," Thurs., Sep. 23, 1880, p. 3, col. 1 PETERSBURG. POLITICAL MATTERS - DISTINGUISHED SPEAKERS INVITED TO PETERSBURG - THE SOUTHAMPTON CASE - POND STILL IN JAIL AND DAVIS DISCHARGED - DELEGATES TO THE PRESBYTERIAN COUNCIL - IMPORTANT MURDER TRIAL, &c. [Correspondence of the Richmond Dispatch.] SEPTEMBER 22, 1880. [...] William H. Pond, of Southampton county, was sent on for indictment by the grand jury of the United States District Court by Commissioner Gallagher on Saturday last, for corruptly swearing out a warrant for tbe arrest of J.P. Davis (colored), to prevent the latter testifying against him in a case pending in said court, or to influence his testimony, is still held in our jail in default of $1,500 bail for his appearance to answer such indictment. The negro Davis, who was brought here from Southampton jail on a writ of "habeas corpus" issued by Judge Hughes to testify against Pond, whose pathetic story, as told to the Commissioner, has been published in full in the Dispatch, was yesterday discharged from jail on an older issued by Judge Barrett, of Southampton county. The ground of the discharge was that Davis was illegally confined. He was convicted of petit larceny and sentenced by the justice trying the case to both stripes and imprisonment. The imprisonment was held to be illegal. There is no doubt that if the full facts in this case are brought out in the United States Court thev will go to show that the prosecution of Pond partakes more of the nature of a persecution than otherwise. [...] "Alexandria (VA) Gazette," Thurs., Sep. 23, 1880 (Vol. 81, No. 223) p. 2, col. 2 A JUSTICE WHO PLEADS IGNORANCE.- The case of W.H. Pond, of Petersburg, Va., charged with corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due administration of justice before the United States Court by intimidating J.P. Davis, a colored minister, who reported him for selling liquor without license, has been sent on by the U.S. Commissioner to the United States Court which meets at Richmond on the 6th of October next. Pond is confined in jail in Pettersburg in default of of $1,500 bail. Davis, who was subsequently arrested on a warrant issued at the instance of Pond, charging him with having obtained goods under false pretenses, and who Justice Kindred, of Southampton county, found guilty and fixed his punishment at six months in jail and thirty nine lashes, has been released from custody under a writ of habeas corpus issued by Judge Hughes under the laws of Virginia. Davis was only punishable by stripes.- Justice Kindred pleads ignorance of the law as an excuse for sending Davis to jail. Davis says while in jail he was twice shot at and threats were made of burning him alive. After thirty-nine lashes had been indicted upon Davis, Pond wanted eighteen more give. The case has been much commented upon, [...] "Alexandria (VA) Gazette," Fri., Sep. 24, 1880 (Vol. 81, No. 224) p. 3, col. 3 Bailed. PETERSBURG, VA., Sept. 24.- W.H. Pond charged with obstructing and impeding the due administration of justice before the U.S. Circuit Court and who was confined in jail here awaiting trial in the U.S. second district court, which meets in Richmond on October 5, gave bail this morning in the sum of $1,500 for his appearance at that time. The bond represents over $100,000 and is signed by Sheriff Briggs, the Commonwealth's Attorney and other prominent gentlemen of Southampton county. [...] "The (Richmond, VA) Daily Dispatch," Sat., Sep. 25, 1880, p. 3, col. 1 PETERSBURG. THE SOUTHAMPTON CASE AGAIN - MR. POND ADMITTED TO BAIL: THE CASE IN COURT - PERSONAL PROPERTY IN PETERSBURG; SOME OF THE FIGURES - EPISCOPAL CHURCH AT CHESER - PETERSBURG BENEVOLENT MECHANIC ASSOCIATION, &c., &c. [Correspondence of the Richmond Dispatch.] SEPTEMBER 24, 1880. Mr. William H. Pond, of Southampton county, who on Saturday last, after examination before Commissioner Gallagher in this city, was sent on to the October term of the United States District Court to answer the charge of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due administration of justice in said court, and who was committed to jail here in default of $1,500 bail for his appearance to-day gave the required amount of bail and was released from custody. The bail-bond represents over $100,000, and is signed by the sheriff, Commonwealth's attorney, and other prominent gentlemen of the county of Southampton. As this case has been given wide notoriety through the Republican press of the North by reason of the statements sent out from the Revenue Department at Washington, to which it was first reported, it will doubtless attract considerable interest when it comes to trial in the United States Court. It will there receive the fullest investigation, as in justice not alone to the defendant, but to the people of Southampton county, upon whose fair reputation a serious reflection has been cast, it should receive. The negro Davis's sworn statement before the commissioner here, which was positively and emphatically pronounced to be false by Kindred, will be met by further rebuttal on the part of respectable citizens of Southampton. His sworn statement that two or more attempts were made to murder him while in the jail at Jerusalem, is pronounced false by the sheriff of the county, and others who ought to know of the facts; and Davis's record will doubtless be brought out in full light before the court. [...] "The (Richmond, VA) Daily Dispatch," Tues., Sep. 28, 1880, p. 2, col. 3 PETERSBURG. A WAR RELIC - DEATH'S DOINGS - HEAVY MAST CROP - TEMPERANCE MEETINGS - THE GOSPEL CAMP-MEETINGS - REVIVALS - THE POND CASE - POLITICAL. [Correspondence of the Richmond Dispatch.] SEPTEMBER 27, 1880. A day or two ago, while fallowing on the Gurley farm, in Prince George County, near this city, a silver badge almost as bright as when new was plowed up by one of the workmen. It has engraved upon it: "John Smith, 100th Pa. V. V." - indicating that it was lost there during the siege of Petersburg. The "Gurley farm" during the last year of the war was within the Federal lines, and was the scene probably of one or more battles. It was often traversed by heavy bodies of troops. The badge is held in this city for the requisition of the owner, if alive, or any of his family or friends. Mr. Richard L. Meredith, whose death is announced in the Dispatch, was at one time a resident of Petersburg, where be made manv friends who will read the intelligence of his death with sincere regret. Mr. Walter Alley, a well-known young man of this city, died yesterday of slow fever. He was a native of Prince George county. [...] Deputy United States Marshal Coldwell, of Richmond, was in the city today summoning witnesses in the case of the United States vs. W.H. Pond, charged with endeavoring to obstruct and impede tbe administration of justice in the District Court, to appear and give evidence in the case on its trial on the 5th of October. J.P. Davis, the complainant in the case, was to-day arrested on a warrant issued by Judge Hughes to be held as a witness, and was taken to Richmond by the Marshal to-day. [...] "The (Richmond, VA) Daily Dispatch," Wed., Oct. 6, 1880, p. 3, col. 1 PETERSBURG. CAPTAIN WISE AT ETTRICK - CONSERVATIVE MASS-MEETINGS IN THE CITY - THE SOUTHAMPTON CASE - A FOREIGN SHIPMENT - BUSINESS PROSPECTS - THE CITY AND THE ATLANTIC, MISSISSIPPI AND OHIO RAILROAD - THE PEANUT TRADE. [Correspondence of the Richmond Dispatch.] OCTOBER 5, 1880. [...] Some twelve or fifteen witnesses in the case of the Government against William H. Pond - most of them from Southampton county - went over to Richmond this morning to testify before the grand jury of the United States District Court. As many more witnesses, who will testify in behalf of Pond should an indictment be found agalnst him, will go over to Richmond on Thursday. [...] "The (Richmond, VA) Daily Dispatch," Fri., Oct. 8, 1880, p. 1, col. 6 THE CASE OF W.H. POND.- The grand jury of the United States Circuit Court yeserday found three indictments against William H. Pond, as follows: Firstly, for obtructing the ends of justice; secondly, for violation of the United States revenue laws by selling liquor without a license; and thirdly, for selling tobaco without a license. This case is one of more importance than might be supposed. It will be remembered that some time since a California Demoratic paper published an article from a Republican paper in reference to some outrage committed in Virginia on a colored man who was a witness before the United States Courts. The Virginia press republished the article with a desire to learn the truth of the matter. This led to the arrest of Pond. The facts in the case, which have been before published in the Dispatch, were about as follows: Jacob P. Davis reported William H. Pond, of Southampton, for selling whiskey and tobacco without a license. When the parties came to Petersburg, before the United States Commissioner, Pond swore out a warrant against Davis for obtaining money and goods under false pretences. Davis was committed to jail, but afterwards released on bail. He appeared before the commissioner and testified, and Pond was sent on to the United States Circuit Court. On arriving back in Southampton Davis was carried before one Kendrick, a justice of the peace. Kendrick quashed the warrant taken out in Petersburg and issued another. On this Davis was sentenced to receive thirty-nine lashes and sent to jail for six months. He was unmercifully whipped, but subsequently released from jail under a writ of habeas corpus. Pond's trial will come on during this term. [...] "Alexandria (VA) Gazette," Fri., Oct. 8, 1880, (Vol. 81, No. 236) p. 2, col. 3 INDICTMENT FOR INTIMIDATION.- The grand jury of the United States Court at Richmond, consisting of sixteen democrats and two republicans, yesterday indicted Wm. H. Pond, of Southampton county, for corruptly endeavoring to intimdate J.P. Davis, a colored man, from testifying against him on a charge of selling liquor without license. It was stated that Davis had incurred Pond's displeasure, and the latter drove Davis' wife out of the house she had lived in; that Davis in revenge reported Pond for violating the revenue laws, upon which Pond was indicted, and that Pond subsequently had Davis arrested on a charge of larceny; that Davis was convicted and received 39 lashes and was sent to jail for six months by a county magstrate without any evidence whatever. It is expectcd that indictments against other persons for oomplicity with Pond in endeavoring to intimidate Davis in the discharge of his duty as a witness will be found by the grand jury at its present term. [...] "The (Richmond, VA) Daily Dispatch," Sat., Oct. 9, 1880, p. 1, col. 4 United States Courts.- The petit jury was called in the United States Court yesterday, and adjourned over until November 16th. The grand jury indicted William H. Pond for intimidating a witness; Frank Jackson (colored), of Louisa, for violating section 14 of the census acts, and Henry Moore (colored), of Richmond, for violating the inter-nal-revenue law. District-Attorney Lewis stated that he had other cases for the grand jury to consider, which were post-office cases, and the witnesses were special agents of the Government and could not attend the court now. He requested the Judge to adjourn the grand jury over until November 15th, which was done. Judge Hugh L. Bond is expected to arrive here in time to hold court Monday. [...] "The (Richmond, VA) Daily Dispatch," Sat., Nov. 6, 1880, p. 1, col. 4 UNITED STATES COURT.- The United States Court will meet again on the 15th instant, at which time the grand jury will be called. The petit jury will meet on the 16th, and the intimidation case of W.H. Pond, of Southampton, will come up for trial. The indictment of Letter-Carrier Lee, of Richmond, will be passed upon by the grand jury when it meets again. Judge Hughes is expected to be in Norfolk to-day. [...] "The (Richmond, VA) Daily Dispatch," Sun., Nov. 14, 1880, p. 2, col. 3 PETERSBURG. PUBLIC SCHOOLS - BISHOP KEENER NOT COMING - RELIGIOUS MATTERS - COTTON RECEIPTS - OBSERVANCE OF THE WEEK OF PRAYER - AN ORDINATION REVOKED - A PETERSBURG HORSE IN LUCK - THE POND CASE - INTERNAL-REVENUE RECEIPTS AND TOBACCO EXPORTS. [Correspondence of the Richmond Dispatch.] NOVEMBER 13, 1880. [...] Witnesses in the case of W.H. Pond, of Southampton county, which comes up for trial in the United States Court, in Richmond, on the 16th, will go over on Tuesday. There are many witnesses for the defence, and the case promises to be one of unusual interest. The trial will probably last for two or three days. [...] "The (Richmond, VA) Daily Dispatch," Tues., Nov. 16, 1880, p. 1, col. 4 United States Court.- The United States Circuit Court - Judge Hughes - met yesterday. The grand jury was in session a short while, and adjourned over until this morning without finding any presentments. To-day the petit jury will meet and the criminal docket will be called. The intimidation case of W.H. Pond, of Southampton, and the case of Leroy Lee, the colored letter- carrier indicted for mail-robbery, will be tried this term. [...] "The (Richmond, VA) Daily Dispatch," Wed., Nov. 17, 1880, p. 1, col. 6 United States Court.- The grand jury of the United States Court was in session yesterday, and found four presentments against Leroy Lee (colored) for robbing the mails. The case of W.H. Pond, of Southampton, charged with selling whiskey without license, was begun, and will be continued to-day. [...] "The (Richmond, VA) Daily Dispatch," Thurs., Nov. 18, 1880, p. 1, col. 6 UNITED STATES COURT.- In the United States Circuit Court yesterday the testimony was concluded in the case of W.H. Pond, of Southampton, charged with violating the internal-revenue law by selling liquor without license, and argument will be heard to-day. The grand jury will meet again to-morrow. [...] "The (Richmond, VA) Daily Dispatch," Fri., Nov. 19, 1880, p. 1, col. 1 Brief Items.- In the United States Court yesterday argument was concluded in the case of W.H. Pond, of Southampton, charged with violating the internal- revenue law, and the case will be given to the jury to-day. [...] "The (Richmond, VA) Daily Dispatch," Tues., Nov. 23, 1880, p. 1, col. 3 Brief Items.- The old hardware firm of W. S. Donnan & Co. have sold their stock and good-will to the new firm of Donnan, Cannon & Co. The intimidation case of W. H. Pond, of Southampton, will come up for trial in the United States Circuit Court to-day. A special jury has been drawn to try the case. [...] "The (Richmond, VA) Daily Dispatch," Wed., Nov. 24, 1880, p. 1, col. 5 United States Court.- In the United States Circuit Court - Judge Hughes presiding - the suit of Noble vs. Blacker was decided in favor of the defendant. Ten thousand dollars were involved in this suit, and the facts have already appeared in the Dispatch. The case of W.H. Pond, charged with intimidating a witness, was begun, and will probably engage the attention of the court until Friday. [...] "The (Richmond, VA) Daily Dispatch," Thurs., Nov. 25, 1880, p. 1, col. 4 The Pond Case.- The United States Circuit Court was engaged yesterday in trying the case of W.H. Pond, charged with intimidate a witness. The facts in the case have already been published in the Dispatch. The trial may probably end to-day. Twenty-six witnesses were snmmoned on the part of the Government to testify in this case, and have been here several days. [...] "The (Richmond, VA) Daily Dispatch," Fri., Nov. 26, 1880, p. 1, col. 6 A STATE OFFICER CHARGED WITH INTIMIDATING A WITNESS.- In the United States Court yesterday - Judge R.W. Hughes presiding - the case of David H. Kindred, a justice of the peace of Southampton county, who was indicted with W.H. Pond for intimidating a witness and obstructing the administration of justice in the United States Court by convicting and punishing a United States witness, was taken up. In this case the defendant filed a plea denying the jurisdiction of a court of the United States, upon the ground that the act alleged in the indictment was done by the defendant as a justice of the peace within the limits of his jurisdiction; and that for either error or corruption therein, if any, he is amenable only to the courts of the State, and not to the courts of the United States. After argument the case was continued until the next term. The defendant was released upon his own recognizance, without security, with the understanding that a "nolle prosequi" will be entered next spring if the Court should in the mean time overrule. [...] The Pond Case.- In this case, which has occupied the jury of the United States Circuit Court for several days, a verdict was rendered yesterday morning for the defendant. [...] "Alexandria (VA) Gazette," Fri., Nov. 26, 1880 (Vol. 81, No. 278) p. 2, col. 2 STATE OFFICERS BEFORE THE U.S. COURT. In the United States Court in Richmond yesterday, Judge R.W. Hughes presiding, the case of David H. Kindred, a justice of the peace of Southampton county, who was indicted with W.H. Pond for intimidating a witness and obstructing the administration of justice in the United States Court by convicting and punishing a United States witness, was taken up. In this case the defendant filed a plea denying the jurisdiction of a court of the United States, upon the ground that the act alleged in the indictment was done by the defendant as a justice of the peace within the limits of his jurisdiction; and that for either error or corruption therein, if any, he is amenable only to the courts of the State, and not to the courts of the United States. The question was argued at length upon authority, particularly upon the case of ex parte Virginia reported in 10th Octo. by John Lyon, esq., for the defendant and L.L. Lewis, esq., district attorney for the United States. The court took time to consider of its judgment, saying that the question was new and important, and ought to be decided. The case was continued until the next term. The defendant was released upon his own recognizance without security, with the understanding that a nolle prosequi will be entered next spring if the court should in the meantime overrule.- "Richmond State." [...] "Alexandria (VA) Gazette," Sat., Dec. 11, 1880 (Vol. 81, No. 291) p. 2, col. 3-4 Another of Judge Hughes's Decisions. In this case, which was argued two weeks ago, Judge Hughes yesterday morning delivered the following decision: United States vs. David H. Kindred. This indictment charges the defendant with unlawfully and corruptly endeavoring to influence, obstruct, and impede the due administration of justice in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia in having, upon a warrant sued out by one William Myrick, dealt with J.P. Davis, a witness under recognizance in the United States Court, in the manner set forth in the indictment - that is to say, the indictment, after setting out the facts connected with the warrant including whipping and unlawful imprisonment, charges that Kindred did issue said warrant of arrest and did impose said sentence upon the said Davis to influence and obstruct him as a witness in said court of the United States, and with the further intent to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice in the said Court. There is a motion to quash the indictment for want of jurisdiction; a demurrer to the indictment based on the same ground of defence; and a special plea in bar setting out that Kindred in all that he did acted as a judicial officer; and claiming that if he acted only erroneously he is exempt from trial because his act was judicial and can only be reviewed by a State court for appellate jurisdiction; and if he acted corruptly, he is amenable only to the authorities and courts of Virginia, and is not amenable to trial and punishment by any court of the United States. To this plea there is a demurrer by the United States. It is not pretended, if there were no charge of wilful malfeasance or corruption here, but only of erroneous action by the justice of the peace in his judicial capacity, that the court of the United States would have jurisdiction to review the erroneons judgment committed in the discharge of a judicial function. Furthermore, although justices of the peace and all judicial officers are liable to indictment or arraignment in some manner for corrupt acts committed in the exercise of their judicial functions, yet it is not pretended that a court of the United States may try an indictment brought for any such corrupt judicial act against judicial officers of the State. The United States Court has no such general power. But it is contended by the United States that if a law of Congress passed as necessary and proper for carrying into effect any constitutional provision is corruptly violated by any person, even though he be a judicial officer of a State, such person is amenable to prosecution in a United States court for each offence. The Federal Government, its officers, and courts have certain well defined powers. The Government may establish a postoffice system, do all acts necessary to conducting it efficiently, pass laws tor punishing depredations upon the mails, and empower its courts to enforce those laws. So it may establish a customs system, an internal revenue system, a judiciary system, and do other things especially authorized by the national Constitution; and it may pass all laws necessary and proper tor carrying into execution the specific powers granted by that instrument. The peculiarity of our Federal Government, distinguishing it from all other confederacies proviously existing, and from the confederacy of 1870 to 1879, [sic] which existed under the old articles of confederation, is that it is empowered to act upon individuals in the Statcs in the exercise of the powers that have been adverted to, and is not limited in its powers to demands upon the constituent States in their corporate capacity. Its laws affect individuals, its authority controls individuals, its officers deal with individuals, its courts have cognizance of individuals. And, as the law is not a respecter of persons, if any individual wilfully and corruptly violates a law of Congress it will in general not avail him to plead that he is exempt from acountability by reason of his being an officer of a State, and did the act with which he is charged as an officer of the State. It is very true, as has been decided in the cases cited at bar by defendant's counsel, that State officers are as such exempt from the operation of certain laws of the United States. A State officer's salary, for instance, cannot be taxed by the United States, because the power to tax would carry the power to destroy, and it is incompatible with the comity which should subsist between the Federal Government and those of the States, that any general law of Congress taxing salaries should be extended to the salaries of State officers. [See Collector vs. Day, 11 Wallace, 125] So, a State officer, appointed under State laws, responsible to State Courts, and charged with duties and service to the State, is not in general liable to process from United States courts requiring him to perform positive duties imposed by laws of Congress. [See Kentucky vs. Dennison, 24 Howard, 107.] But I am told that these and like cases which have been decided, and were cited by defendant's counsel, none of them go to the extent of deciding that a State officer who wilfully and corruptly violates a law of Congress passed for any of the constitutional purposes which have been indicated is, "qua" State officer, clothed with impunity for his crime and exempted from punishment. The laws of the United States operate upon individuals without any reference in general to their relations to the State. The resident of their being State officers does not in general affect their liability as citizens to the ordinary process and jurisdiction of the courts of the United States; and, as before said if they commit crimes against the United States, they are punishable for such crimes. Now, in the present case, a law is charged to have been violated which is necessary and proper to securing the efficient administration of their functions by the courts of the United States. There could be no proper administration of justice if the strong and influential were at liberty to arrest, imprison and otherwise intimidate the weak and timid and detain them from attendance as witnesses before the United States courts. Congress has constitutional power to pass laws proper for preventing the commission of this offence, and the plea and demurrcr of the defendant virtually admits that he would be amenable to these laws but for the fact that he, in the acts complained of, was acting in the judicial capacity of a justice of the peace of the State of Virginia. So that the only question for considertion is, Whether a justice of the peace of a State may, in the exercise of his office, wilfully and corruptly violate a law of the United States? If this indictment merely charged the defendant with an erroneous judgment it could not be sustained; for errors committed even by so humble a judicial officer as a justice of the peace cannot be reviewed, corrected, or punished by indictment in any court, but must go up to an appellate court for correction on appeal or writ of error. But this indictment charges a wilful and corrupt motive and notion on the part of this justice; charges an offence which is especially made punishable by a constitutional law of Congressed [sic] passed in 1831. That justices of the peace and all judicial officers are punishable at common law for corrupt conduct in their judicial office when so expressly charged by indictment, is too well settled to need argument. The case of Jacobs vs. The Commonwealth (2 Leigh 709) is an instance in which the courts have recognized this liability in the State of Virginia. So, the only question is, Whether justices are liable under an act of Congress to indictment for a statutory offence, charged to have been committed wilfully and corruptly. I think, after what has been said, that this proposition is too plain for argument, and I will overrule the defendant's demurrer, deny his motion to quash, and sustain the prosecution's demurrer to the plea. After the delivery of the opinion District Attorney Lewis asked leave of the court to enter a "nolle prosequi" in the case. He asked it on the ground that as W.H. Pond, the person who was primarily charged with the offence of intimidating the witness Davis upon much stronger evidence than exists against Kindred had been acquitted, he thought it useless to put the present case before the petty jury. [...] Additional information: Articles posted as parts of the Library Of Virginia's "Virginia Chronicle" Virginia newspaper project, at: http://www.virginiamemory.com/collections/virginia_newspapers - text of articles corrected Southampton Co. Court Order Book 1875-81 gives the following: [p.] 504 At a Court held for the County of Southampton at the Court house thereof on Monday the 19th day of July A.D. 1880. Present, The Hon. E.C. Barrett Judge [...] Writing, dated 31st May 1880 between William H. Pond and J.P. Davis, conveying the Crops of said Davis was admitted to record June 21st 1880. [...] [p.] 510 [...] Wm. H. Pond is appointed Surveyor of the Road leading from the Newitt Harris place to the Woodward place in the place of Walter Darden removed from the District. [...] Contributed for use in the USGenWeb Archives by by File Manager Matt Harris (zoobug64@aol.com). file at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/va/southampton/news/18800921rd.txt