New-York daily tribune., 1844-01-19
liz case vas resnnsd this m ornlng on behalf


Trial of Amelia Norman.
This case was resumed tins morning on behalf o.
,f .ccu.-d u? our: .es crowded Is yestrd ~ -
r=lst.ol-lu muitituGs 9!naIaiaS ouisldr ~
could net gain, adm,s,'on and the most inre Hc.EeHt -
,- en- m ubrct oi i;- tfiaI aud dep oi!cude Ter rs
u NUMBER oi l.i, respectable iades Of the Moral
Reform deep interest N the late oi IN
upblqpy young tiil seated N' ts'' tie oar
= yg. sey-r. gentlemen who ch-tlSlled eel!u- u
,og.tl for the situation Of The tccqSed herusoGe w.
sst Ccad IN dep black her wearing Of
near her counsel within Tie ha her eye occasionally
Sesmss yy. exhibiting the desolauon OF izeHs
that reisEsi within he: breast,
The Court came in at IL O'clock, and the Re
cor~r proceeded liver hs ogm'oo ,hs toUF; on i-
sublrc ot t evidence proposed 10 @ introduced t 'e de-
fence :. 10 The series OF lc= thar led :; the Of mat o' te
prisoner producing The assar-fu!a@ such testimony 10 b.
,nad,n,ss,5e. The following IS t''= Oe'nloA
The ;'eop:e -. Amelia Norman.
The counsel Tor the prosecution having rested
yzar the prisoner ssdnce,i by Ballard The FeFsoa on
whom is 2elgrt she endea'crsd toIact deaHy "9qad
ms ,pjsqugnt cohabitaoa wh aud a5and 1nment nt her,
leaving her unds circumstances OF eat Dependence distress
hs eyisace can only be admissible the ground that il
affords Justification for the alejss aemptto commit HON
clds or u [o5nc" ,5 hp ndsd sia Of mind that deprived
her Of the power o: rlst from wrong aEd II
to rnab them TO Judge Of the probable effect that such
cours. wrong might produce
forling justihcation 'or the alir,isrd offence?
10 examining this question will remark that the same sy
4nce is admissible The alsdged attempt to
m that would be allowed IN Jnstncaon had The ACT been
In The cas- Of murder to .rbut the evidence Of malice, it
appear t the Foeation was recent Tor ~ ever;
vocation may BE- if there be sufficient tine for the passion
subsde and for 70 mt9rpOSe, such HOMICIDE Will b.
"bsc Of the aquir M Whether tie suspension OF reason
from sudden passion continued from the time OF the
,Tr naS for If the the "arv Effected batsI or
cooled before INJURY inflicted the killing whamount
70 murdet. however sfieIous or eAaetahs ths
Wiir the law therefore makes allowance for in
nity usepara5!e from the human character Carefully DIS
tu.ushes between which induced By the promptngS
of vaseated feelings and pressing wTons and deep rooted
neiIta;ed reysnsa
The samr principles are applicable to the case nov
under consideration, and cau IT be urged that provo
down TO within short time anecedeut The aIl-dged a.
tempt murder be embraced IN the first class o! cases 10
winch have suded the lu.t nduce by
e ionc continued wroTgs over w'ch she had
bood=d until aud drspondency had ripened into r.
venge Il is proposed prove that the assault was m
duced by any immediate royocaoa The acts constintIn
tn be with the intended
homicide or tf- immediate moving cause The ey'denc-
sought introduced not Of that character ana therefore
in my Judgement, Is not admissible on that ground
The reasons for the adoption Of ti; distinction too obv
Gus to require much remark To allow an injured party TO
seek his opessor at his discretion tor real or
iry for redress would break the samen that bind society
together, would DESTROY the stability Of our Institutions
formed Tor the preservation OF peace and erder ana justify
yopu!ar violence and anarchy,
sibe as facts to 20 III Inry enable ths' jq-e Of
the sanity Of 5@ M Ga ia M n ind s s
Ii is proposed By the introduction Of this evidence 70 prove
so %"1Is s""e % of on the ar5 Of Bar r
cexsion ornons which might produce that state OF insanity
for her acts.
Ths position is objectionable on various grounds. st Be
effects upon differently constituted minds. Slight cause
VIII produce violent effects, with person
'nI % an, S's Tvs, s % f -, -. I f Tn -bc
,1tl q ~
c9mpanied b. ev,ds"cs = The eect When The Effect s
beings the cause Of that imbecy of mnd:hat exoneraes
from ihe ce5ponslbit{ may be proved
Of mind whe. about The tme whsn the assault was com;
nt,ed-scnr from whc jury might nir thar the mnd
diseased and that the of distinguishing night from
is not every high evceman. the mind thar dhrones it
Of that that enables th-
party 10 know that thu act about 10 BE- committed is VIOLA
ton of law, rt delusion does not exist whch necessary To
render The viol'or OF the law sponsi6e for his ac
To svfare 'mnnaty FEN The Jf@ts OF erin nsaGty mus
the sanity sery who violates ~ and he seeks I
emPoa from Inc consequences hlS rst 10 exemption muI
be clearly made exist wtn the offence committed
The question IS the accused b permitted prove the
existence OF facts from winch insanity may be 'ne
rcloe evieuce OF the positue present existe ce
OF that irresponsible conduit ai the mind that xIn? from
accountablity au cear OF that opinion a'd that the teS-
tmony oifefed IS not admissible
The Counsel for accused took exception TO the
decision in at and contened ior the right TO show h=
saue state niud Of the accused ~ the OF the assault
This the Court admitted 10 be pfo'f ana Sdiu e cou"e' o'
Defendant st proceed 20 show The state OF mind oi 's p'-
with the assault and # The fact Of the
,hs, h, ,5 >, proceed 70 .bo,. h.,
a'a"i'y ,'' ,,,'
SANITY OF id 'i hs prisoner winch 'efs TIE haoEiaa means
that led 10 the ct Of violence.
n., inn J,L,,ay ,ii,e iYoduo,e HeSfslI s,,,rn
,t az % 100 .,, - 't''' =. ." 80 ~ ~ -, - "
y esiNs iI ~" INV 's .. t'' -tie,' - -
lie pE4Dnei th"l Cih Say lV9iti'elS LsS' "a" he' o
tore hAow sAe never D9"!ue we" I'e M nietu eeiieo
iOrw?TdI % tt'iN ever 80 t'it se''le''aH
Do at think he called atmy hou'eam quite sure ne ne
Yer did.
Hrs isa5eiA, fjurley swOrli-i am the wife of
pt t', Ind SD, A. = AI,s,, 81 know Ameiil Nor.
mn and Ias for i've or SIX yeaT5,ooid suppose she was
snnr II or 6 was then re.dlny with M, Merriam
auos @ ~ % p ~. y 50 - IL 81 -. bsr her