From the Richmond Dispatch, 8/30/1864, p.1, c. 6 and 7
The Dueling Case Continued. – The dueling case, in which Messrs. E. C. Elmore and H. Rives Pollard are involved, was again taken up on 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 was 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 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 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 E. 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 the 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. Peticolas 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 a 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 today at the State court-house, when the arguments 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 with the power of the Commonwealth to bring said witnesses before them.