Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1816-06-12

liant : We are therefore clearly of nP;W ;
on that IN the Goth Of January last, kau
Carson was the wife of john Carson, and
that he haA right to settle his differences
with his wife, aud to receive her again 10
ta his arms. -. -,
1t being universally understood and
Known, that the property of the wife, is
thc property of the husband, and that he
nLon. has the controul over 1t, the conse-
.ouence ia, that John Carson had an un-
doub, ed right to take possession of the
house and goods which belonged to his
wife, on his return in january last, to this
CITY aud to his family. 1t follows, that
Richard Smith the prisoner, was an intru-
der and had acquired unlawful possession
of the wife, of the house, and OF the goods
and chattels of John Carson.
This point being settled, we proceed to
remark, that the crime Of murder essenti-
ally consists, in taking away the lite Oh
fellow creature, with circumstances that
show vindictive temper and malignity of
heart.
1t is not the design of the court to dis
tract your minds, or fatigue your attenti-
on. by a tedious discussion on the law OF
murder. We shall endeavor to make you
understand SD much of this subject, that
Won NAV be able To form correct judg
ment on the question submitted to you.
1t will be proper to state few leading
princiules. that have received the sanction
OF the highest judicial authority, IN this
state, subsequent to passing the law OF
1894. 80.
In the case of the commonwealth vs..
tnuia to I, b. tried at Easton in l795, be-
fore Chief Justice M'Kean and Judge
Smith il was decided by the court that
since passing he law of 1894, the Intention
still remains the criterion of the crime
that the Intention of the prisoner, is to be
collected from his acordS and actions, aud
that on the superstition, man, without
altering word, should strike another on
the head with an axe, it would be deemed
premeditdted violence.
In the case Of the Commonwealth, VS..
O'fiarra, tried before Chief Justice
M'Kean and Judges Shipper and Smith.
in Philadelphia, in the year 1897, the
court held, the murder be committed
with an instrument, likely to kill, it is will
full and that to make il deliberate and
premeditated the party must have time to
reflect and to frame the design, however
short the time may be, and must intend to
kill.
If the defendant has time to think, and
did intend to kill for minute as well as
an hour, or day, il is deliberate, will
full, and premeditated killing, constituting
murder in the first degree within the act
OF assembly.
We shall presently examine the con-.
duct of the prisoner, and compare it, with
the principles, laid down in these ca
ses.
In the mean time, we observe to you.
gentlemen, that the principles just stated.
are from the highest judicial authority in
Pennsylvania, and that it's the duty Of
fhis court, and of you as Jurymea to sub
init TO them.
For moment however, gentlemen, let
us enquire into their correctness.
The isilfal, deliberate, and premeditated
killing person, is by the law of 1884 des-
cribed to be murder in the first degree.
What is it to kill person iciydiy {?
1t is the same thing as killing him on pur.
pose. He who does an act aoiTuLly does
1t on purpose. and he who does an act on
purpose, does it sciifllly.
The next Ingredient to make the killing
murder, in The first degree, is, it must be |
deliberate. But does the law fix the time
Of such deliberation--no such thing, gen.
tlemen-Ioes it say, the prisoner must
ponder over the crime for years, for
months, for weeks, or days or hours, or
for any other giuen time What sort OF
q law would It be, if such construction |
were Pat upon it, by courts and juries ?
Suppose for example, it should be con-
tended, that it must appear, the party had
pondered on the commission Of the crime, |
one hour or five minutes before the fact.
! ask then, why fix an hour or FIVE mi
nutes, for deliberation why not half an
hour ? why not tho hours ? why not t,oo
minutes
The truth is, in the nature of the thing |
no time is fixed by the law, or can be fix
ed for the dehbera'ion required, to consti-
tute the crime of murder.
To deliberate is to reflect, with a VIEW |
to make a choice (; and if it appeared the
party did reflect, tho but for minute be.
fore he acted, it is unquestionably suffi
Cient deliberatiOn, within the meaning OF |
che act nf assembly.
The last requisite to constitute murder |
In the fist deg ee, is that the killing must
be Prsntsditated.
To premeditate is TO think of a matter |
before hand--it is to conceive of thing, |
before it is executed. The word premedi-
tGted would seem to imply, something
more than deliberate, and may mem, that
the party had not Only deLiberated, but
had framed in his mind the plan OfdeStruc-
ton.
We therefore say to you gentlemen, and
- - =. III