The duelling case continued.
--The duelling case, in which
Messrs. E. C. Elmore and
H. Rives Pollard are involved, was again taken up in the Henrico county court-house yesterday before
Justices Riddick and
Lee.
After the opening of the court,
Mr. John B. Young, the prosecuting attorney, read from a city newspaper a certain local paragraph with reference to the testimony of
Mr. George W. Butler, in which it alleged that that gentleman testified that, from a conversation which he had had with
Mr. Elmore relative to a duel which had taken place between himself and
John M. Daniel, he had heard
Mr. Elmore say that he had had a hostile meeting with
mr. Daniel.
Mr. Butler, upon being called to the stand, remarked that he thought the reporter was mistaken in so quoting his testimony.
His impression was that, on Saturday week, when before the
County Justices, he testified that, in a conversation with
Mr. Elmore, on the day on which it was said a duel had been fought between that gentleman and
Mr. Daniel, he learnt from
Mr. Elmore that a meeting had taken place; but he could not say that
Mr. Elmore had used the words "hostile meeting" While on the street, he had heard from various parties that
Mr. Daniel and
Mr. Elmore had fought a duel, and soon after he met
Mr. Elmore and approached him on the subject.
In reply,
Mr. Elmore informed him that he
had met Mr. Daniel; but as to the manner and place, he (
Butler) was unwilling to say that he received any information from him. It was impossible to separate the conversations which he had with different parties on the street, with reference to the affair, from that which subsequently took place between himself and
Elmore, and therefore he could not pretend to give his exact words.
Mr. Young then remarked that, as he had referred, on Saturday last, to a report in one of the daily papers with reference to
Mr. Butler's testimony, in order to set his own recollection of the testimony given right, he only desired to produce said report of the evidence and re- question
Mr. Butler as to its accuracy.
Mr. Butler was then released from the witness's stand.
Dr. Peticolas, who refused on Saturday to testify with reference to the duel, was then called to the stand and asked by
Mr. Young, the prosecutor, whether, of his knowledge, a duel had been fought between
John M. Daniel and
R. C. Elmore; and if so, what was the result of the meeting?
Dr. Peticolas.--I decline to answer the question, on the ground that it may eventually lead to a criminal prosecution against myself.
Mr. Young then appealed to the
Justices to state whether
Dr. Peticolas should not be committed to jail for contempt of court in refusing to answer certain interrogatories propounded by him.
Justice Lee replied that "the court is clearly of the opinion that
Dr. Peticolas is bound to answer the questions put to him by the
Commonwealth's attorney."
Mr. Young.--
Doctor, I again put the question to you. [It was the same as reported above.]
Dr. Peticolas.--I respectfully decline to answer.
In accordance, therefore, with the decision as announced by
Justices Riddick and
Lee,
Dr. Petico- las then stood in the position of a man condemned to imprisonment for contempt of court, but immediately afterwards
Mr. Patrick Henry Aylett, his counsel, drew a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus in behalf of his client, and at once obtained from
Judge Meredith's writ commanding the sheriff of
Henrico to bring
Dr. Peticolas before him at the State court-house.
The order was complied with, and before two o'clock the
Doctor was admitted to bail, and required to appear at 12 o'clock to-day at the State court-house, when the argument of his case will commence.
Subsequent to the above proceedings,
Mr. Young asked the adjournment of further proceedings until Saturday next in order that certain important witnesses might be summoned to appear and testify.--The court thereupon adjourned till that time, and, in the meantime, the officers of the county were instructed to use every means within the power of the
Commonwealth to bring said witnesses before them.
