The Columbia Democrat. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1837-1850, 1838-02-10

eTcuSed In destroying the life of the de-
ceased, of what offence is he guilty? ItI
cannot be said TO be INVOLUNTARY man
slaughter where the use Of deadly weapon,
as well as the manner of using it, strongly
indicate an intention to kill. For the same
reason, in the opinion of the court, the pris-
oner cannot be convicted of murder IN the
second degree, which, we have already
seen, is where there is no intention TO kill.
Still if the jury believe that there was
deliberate design to infict grievous and
dangerous wound, without justification or
eTcuse, and UithOm any design TO kill,
they may find the prisoner guilty of murder
in the ID degree. On this point, the court
have already intimated their opinion that
the use of the axe and the manner of using
it, sufficiently indicates an intention to kill,
and if so, under the evidence in the cause,
it is not case Of murder in the second de-
gree.
If this view of the case be correct the
prisoner is guilty of either "murder IN the
first degree" or "uOi,mtary manSlaugh-
ter"-the time depending, for its name and
character, upon the finding the jury, on
the question whether the act was peIpetra-
ted with malice qforethOught or without it,
or in other words with deliberation or
tCjthout IL. If with deliberation, or with
malice JOrethought, it is murder IN the
first degree. If tcithom deliberation or
with n,Gt,ce GforethougM it is voluntary
nanSiaughter.-It is alleged that this act
was committed in pursuance Of an old
grudge ofseveral years standing, and that
the prisoner, at the time he killed the de-
: ceased, was moved by that ancient hatred,
and not by the sudden provocation which
was given. If this be so, the crime is mur.
der in the first degree. In support of this
allegation we have the testimony of John
Armstrong, James Campbell, and Jane:
Mccain, showing that quarrel took place
between the prisoner aud the deceased in
1884, and that threats were afterwards
made by the prisoner against the deceased
provided the latter came through his enclo-
sure, or "insulted him again" But it is
also in evidence. by the testimony of Free
man Poke, VIM. Sproul, David Ewes, Sa-
rah Ann Sproul and VIM. Welliver, that
there was reconciliation between the par
ties; that they were afterwards seen togeth-
chatting upon friendly terms-and that this
good understanding continued between them
even to the middle of the very day on which
this melancholy event took place. With
this evidence to show it counterfeit, the act
must not be presumed to have been done
upon the malice or threats expressed sever
al years before.
But it is alleged that the declarations of
the prisoner, after the fact, sufficiently show
that the act was not done in sudden pas
sion, but upon deliberation. Mr.. Justice
Foster has been cited to prove that hasty
confessions made TO persons having no au-
thority to receive them, are the weakest
and most suspicious of all evidence, often
misunderstood and frequently misrepresen-
ted, through inattention' ignorance, or ma
lice. tits certainly true that the hasty
declarations of the prisoner should be exam
ined with care. But what are the declar-
ations in this case! By the testimony of
John Kissner, it appears that the prisoner,
speaking Of this transaction, declared that
he "was in as good humour as he ever
was" TO Jacob w. Warner he said he
was "not angry at Dornell." To Caleb
Thomas that he was "not angry or mad,
and to James Masters that he was not in
passion-that he had nothing against the
man-that in fright he sprang from under
Dornell, grabbed for something-got the
axe and struck without knowing what ne
had in his hand. 1t is the province Of the
jury to decide upon the meaning of these
declarations, and it is submitted to the jury
whether, when the whole of the prisoners