Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-10-25


peiaie ,ouri, he OF he sourt below 10 overrsi
leg 'be apple S'oo, would re by hill 81 exceptions
.,stng Al toe proof. which offered TO the jsry
The bl Il EXCEPTIONS mrs, ia ei,bpr adept usen
TO The usnre Of th. suer orpis,ned ei. AM ,hsw
pres,ssly whrrsio "a was contu,t'sd. lis upon he
ioInsr around slcro 'he' this lie ore NJ
H. therefore, IN cave DOW under idef auop, the
corp iosd OF Hcts, that ,ha Judge bad admitted
the iony OF dyiue declaration, which ipcompe-
ten, b'e.u the deceased, when ne made them, wa,
not under the spp'-hecsicn @. imrsudirg death, snd
o, OF ueuta espssi,y 20 i.s ;'y, iacs refer
lie rescd u a'c-'a,n Whether ,hs matters IN. reu
,a'-d. 'hsn "a h, Judge most have cred IN id
hitting tbN evidencs and in considering ihis que loo
ne inus, view u exclusively es question OF mere
srmpsiency, wholly d'ns, add apart from any
sideta,icn OF the weight Il nigh, have beeo entitled
- wi h tho jury The evidence would not be lbs les.
eowpe'eo though he court gh, think the jury weuld
asvv done RICH, wholly di'rsgardnS Ia. Ia this bill
OF exception, 10 expressly stated, hat tho Judge
was OF opinion that the diseased Of his
sppraAsbrg dss a, he time the questions were pm
70 him, and his YES thereto w,rs ven; aud ALA
that no ws In hs Iisst D'u6, aad uDd,rstccd ihs
question. Tee evidence 10 sustain ,hs opinion, 10
grd 10 tho meue, capacity of the docea'eh, IL, las II
is stated IN the bill II cxctrons,) that many witness
as Who cav 'hs dasrssed, Ia iae interval between
nc time he resolved he wound and bio desth, md al
tho Ume the questions were ru 10 the ceased, gave
evidence shat he vss 10 his right mind. Ia r.g.fd 10
The eon,c'ousne'. OF tho drcssssd Ct b' inpend ng
tss h, be only dtrest testimony In the record tsarin.
upon hi, point. Ia Inc Affirmative answer OF The d.
esa.. to the question which s.ksd hu I'D, you
think you ,rs g'ins 10 die!" But ,hs eoo,eeusn-,,
the susuGisfucos oi tho case (s from the p,:ure
oil the wound and Tho state oil the BODY } =, ON
eSPrcs'iou' u'ed by The deceased CWoodeocks sa,,,
case 2, ash. Or. SOC Di. g'.rs cave ibid Gas -
Johns case, E"t. p. or. 557 r.ls court, h ret re
has clearly warrant for promouncng that the opin.
ION oil the Judge as to the sanity OF tho aeceas-
ed, and his consciousness OF approaching death,
was euoneou', unless it can be commended, that
the facts stated in the record furnish such concIu.
sive proof, that the deceased unsound in his mind
and unconscious OF immediate DEATH that II could not
be dsproved by other evidence however direct and co
gent What are these facts stated in the record up-
on this subject II appeared that the deceased receiv
ed stab with knife on Thursday night, that from
the time he received tho wound until his DEATH which
was sometime in the day of Sunday following for much
the grea part OF the time. lin consequence Of the
wound,) the deceased was unable to speak at ALL and
when he was able TO speak, he could only utter short
word or two at time; it appeared also, that the only
answers that he made to the enquiries that wee 81
pounded 10 him. were the words yes SIR, responding
to three oil the ques'iyn and when fourth question
was put, tho deceased unable to answer II, What
ever inerences the jury would have been warranted in
drawing from such circums throw discredit up
on the evidence arising from these answers thus given
this court cannot pronounce that the condition of The do
ceased as exhibited upon these proofs could not posi-
Oily have been consistent with the proof OF compee mt
death.
In deciding, ,hen, whether under the crcums snc e
In the said bill OF exceptions stated the evidence of the
death bed declarations, therein stated WAS incompetent
evidence, and ought not TO have been allowed" ii must
DO borne in mind, that in this record, the deceased
conscious OF standing the brink of eternity--apd
that II this adjudication erroneous the bill of er
ceptions has so been framed to bring into ques
uon and that, therefore, is irreversihe. IL is
admitted by the petitioner that hough it is true in
general thai the dying declarations OF person. who a,
received mortal wound, made under apprehensions
oil death, Sre adm ssibie in criminal for ho
micdei yet, lit i, contended) "hat the diving decla
ra'ions which admissible, be dying declara-
tons OF person in situation 10 give full and COM
ps;e Of the facts Of the action (oi the
a he tru,h hut Al
whole truth Tho court cannot sustain this principle
In the latitude with which it is applied II fact. be
stated which are obviously designed by the party no
states them TO be connected with oh,r facts which he is
about 10 disclose. and 10 be qualified by then so that
the narrative should form entire and complete his
tory OF The whole tansacon and before the posed
disclosure s made, il be interrupted, and the narrative
remains unhnished such partial dec araon would not
be admissible in evidence The declaration which
offered IN evidence in the OF Commonw ealth VS.
Finn, Rand. 7Ol, may DO referred 10 in illustration OF
this point. But il the declaration state facts distinctly
and as far as the declaration goes. does
appear mat The facts ihus stated designed be
connected with some other scs that may be supposed
10 form part Of the full and complete account of the
transaction; would be going too far to reject altogether
the matter thus disclosed, upon any presump of law
that The narrator precuded by his situation Che be-
ing sound in his mindD from giving full and COMPLETE
account oil the ion or upon any presumption OF
TACT that the court could orm that what disclosed
was only part of the truth and not the whole truth
OF the II cannot be contended that the evidence
would be rendered incompetent from the circumstance
That the deceased was not in situation to know all the
facts Ii does not appear in the record what was the
question last propounded 10 the deceased nor there
any evidence whatever OF the cause which rendered
him unable 10 answer H. II his situation was such az
10 disable him. from any other indepe to the
state oil his reason, from giving full and complete
count oil the Transaction and from telling the whole
truth, not merely part OF the truth. that mat
for the decision Of the jury, ami of the eovr,
Even II II we're true that supervetiuk di,ab I,y
had abridged she narrative, which possibly, under
o her sifsuDstaucss, might have been siven by H.
dessasec. sill the question whether The matter dis
closed amounted to full and complete account was
que ',ion properly lett TO that tibuuai whers Tho
Yess the power OF de cdias upon the credit Of wi
60 sni which alone Gao determine, from the circum.
'isoses Of the case, rhs'hsr wSess has told The
whole truth, as well rs pafi OF tho truth, and moth
ing but The ruth II she court exercise the pow ef
OF detding ON The face OF the testimony, tbai wi.
cess of sufficient men al eipssiy not som psisn,
Witness, oeeauss he was upsbls reiu'ed answtr
oms particular enqu ~; and l. the conrl has The DOW
or, moreover, OF pronouhcng, that tho discosu. o,
which no has mado must necessarily have illen Oh
OF uii aud somplcto account OF tho transaction, or
II sush account OF ID a, /, worthy TO be listened 10
and weighed by tho Jury; ii uoIli TO lead "a
dangerous inroads upon The proviose Of jurieF. The
presumption that ,hs dsssaed was not 10 stu ;ion 10
give full aud complete account, Is derived from Ed
mons svijsnss. hat he had put question 10 the d.
ceased, but be was unabls 10 II. The reason.
sbieness ADD the srer Of this prstuns ion, depend
much upon cirsumsiaDsss There Is no hing In ibe
evidence 10 slew that the ques lou last propounded 10
DO decea'ed had aoY r'la ion 10 the homicide, and
that ho mater eoqui'ed eboui formed part OF iul
aud sosPsie account O! b, rs1,asion; ouah less that
he Information soush must n.sessarily b.ve boss
tina, which Ptr.on 10 a ,iIua'ion 10 give such
soun', could not but have been abe TO tell.
Bsiore we san be wd'rsos ell 10 dsawOg the import
ant inierense ATTEMPTED iron E6mood's ties iDiei y,
would DO material 10 know, only The periiBtncy OF
the question o hs It hand, but also III: infer.
val which slapsed between the answer TO the ,Lifd
question and The puiI The Jour h. II the forcs OF
that testimony wssSu'cp ibie OF lsna ion, and m gh
be varied by other proofs h-n eV,D il (his ws<o
question Of competency TO b. dseitei by The Judge
hiI court esbno az this ~ cofd is framed. updeAke