From the Richmond Dispatch, 8/19/1864, p.1, c. 6

The Dueling Case Again. – In the Mayor’s Court yesterday morning, Messrs. H. R. Pollard and E. C. Elmore again appeared, in accordance with the terms of the recognizance entered into by them on the day before. His Honor stated that the correspondence which he had read in the Examiner of that morning was conclusive evidence to his mind that Mr. Pollard was engaged as the second of Mr. John M. Daniel in his duel on Tuesday morning with Mr. Elmore, and therefore he should hold Mr. Pollard as particeps criminis in that affair, and send him, as he had done Mr. Elmore the day before, to a county justice. The witnesses, he said, who had been summoned in the case of an apprehended meeting between Mr. Pollard and Mr. Elmore had not appeared, but he was ready to hear any evidence the defense had to offer.

Mr. P. H. Aylett, counsel for Mr. Pollard, desired to know whether the Mayor pretended to say that newspaper publications were sufficient evidence in point of law to base a charge of criminal prosecution upon against a party? If such was the rule in that court, it was different from any other in which had practiced. On Wednesday, as he considered there had been no charge made against his client of any connection with the duel which had already taken place, but he had only been required to enter into a recognizance to answer the offence of a meeting which it was apprehended was about to take place with Mr. Elmore. The Mayor had refused to disclose the name of his informant, and now, on the second day, he not only did not propose to enter into a hearing of the case, but desired to throw the onus of the charge upon his client. To hold a gentleman under bonds to answer a crime where there has been no accusation made against him was unprecedented, and while he (Mr. A.) did not desire to be discourteous, he still regarded it as an outrage. He therefore hoped that his Honor would see the propriety and the justice of discharging Mr. Pollard. He further said that there was not the slightest ground for apprehending that a duel was contemplated between his client and Mr. Elmore.

The Mayor maintained that he had the right, no matter what may have been Mr. Aylett’s experience in criminal practice, to arrest a party upon what was published in a newspaper correspondence, and he should therefore adhere to his purpose to turn Mr. Pollard over to a county justice to answer the charge of being accessory to the duel between Mr. Daniel and Mr. Elmore which took place on Tuesday morning. With regard to the other charges however, that of being about to break the peace by engaging in another duel, he was willing to take the statement of the parties themselves that there was no such intention on their part, and would therefore not require any further recognizance from them.

Mr. Pollard then left the court-room and proceeded to the office of Justice Riddick, of Henrico county, who bailed him in the sum of two thousand dollars for his appearance at the county court-house on Saturday.

Go to top