Southport telegraph. [volume] (Southport, W.T. [i.e. Kenosha, Wis.]) 1840-1850, 1846-11-11

est inquiry, or exhibiting the slightest feel
ing or anxiety, in regard TO his situation! -
This last fact doubtless impressed the mind
of the jury, as it did tha! Of the Count and
public, most unfavorably towards the pris-
oner, and was the stronges. evidence pre-.
scented of the cypress malice upon which the
indictment rested.
These arc the principal circumstances.
as narrated by the Witnesses for he prosecu-
ton 1t is proper 10 state that the testimony
of George Bonham and Frary, OH the part
of the defence, differed in material points,
from that above given. Frary swore that
Bonham, instead OF calling Keene back said
.Keene, don't you come back, unless to
return the property you took away" and
that when this remark was made, Keene
was advancing towards the mill, with
the miIl-dog in his hand, an article
which it seems he had been carrying about
with him during the time Of The difficulty
Geo. Bonham swore, in addition to this, that
when bis brother demanded the return of
the articles taken away. he said "lf you
don't bring them back, I'll sue H'-that
Mr.. X. replied "sue Pm not afraid!'-that
after X. said "you cannot prove that have
taken ihcm," his brother replied "you have
one Of them in your hand"-that then X.
raised the mill-dog in threatening manner
and advancing, said ''yes! Cd d-n you!
take it," when his brother stepped back and
fred, as before described.
The summing up was commenced by Mr..
Brown, District Attorney OF Milwaukee Co
on the part of the prosecution, whose duty,
we are informed, was ably discharged. Mr.,
B. was followed by Messrs Holiday and
Walker, whose efforts in behalf of the prs
oner displayed more than ordinary ingenu
| ty and talcnt-not point or circumstance,
which could be turned to their advantage,
was left untouched; and the impression was
doubtless general, that if the prisoner was
condemned, it would not be for want of faith
fitness, energy, or ability, on the part ofhis
counsel. Mr.. Arnold closed on the part oil
the prosecution. His speech occupied a
bout eight hours. A forensic effort of more
power has probably seldom been heard
His closing appeal to the jury, lin which
they were called upon 10 sustain the law in
It's majesty and impartialty,and in which al
fusion was made to the violation oflaw anc
justice in the case OF Vineyard, who muir
dcred Arndt, and is now member of ou
Constitutional Conventon-in the case o
Freeman, "the poor, miserable, stolid an
sane negro" who has been condemned tt
be hung-and in the case Of Spencer, whc
because Of hereditary insanity in,he famil.
was acquitted of the murder of his wife
whom he destroyed in fit OF Jealousy
will not soon be forgotten. But we shall
no. pretend to give an idea Of this, nor 9th
er points, Of his eloquent appeals and argu
ments. We could not do the subject jus
tce, and have not room, if we had ability
The defence cndeavored TO sustain the
Gus homicide, but ercuSable homicide, com
mit;ed in self defence. The testimony O
Geo. Bonham and Frary was, of course. the
basis Of the argument; but, unfortunately
there was much 10 dscredit this testimony
and law was rcad,on the other side to show
that, even admitting the evidence in ques'
ton to be entitled to full credit, yet, under
the circumstances, the plea Of sclf'defence
could not stand. The evidence adduced as
to the prisoners former good character fol
:'bencvoIence, kindness, and humanity
was dwclt upon as aff'ording ground for rea
sonable presumption as to his innocence O
the crime aledged, and if a doubt existed
it was contended that the prisoner was en-
titled TO the full benefit Of that doubt, anC
should he acquitted. The Court was re-
quested by the Counsel for the defence t.
charge the Jury specially in reference Il
certain write points presented, embodvns
among others, the points above stated.
The Court. in his charge to the Jury, at
ter reading the material part ofthe testimo
ny, laid down the principles Of law to b'
applied in the case. What constituted .fel
onious homicide, e.rcusable homicide, juSti
fable homicide, and manslaughter,was spe
c fcal,y, clearly, and ably defined Ia
king the life OF human being, with molic'
prepenSe, constitutes the first OF uise.-
The fact of the homicide being pro7ed a
ganst defendant, The Prescriptions ofth'
law are against him; and verdict of muir
der would be the result, unless oytenuatins
circumstances were proved. 1t did not de
volve upon the prosecution in this case tC
prove that there WAS erpreSs malice, but The
fact of the homicide being proved against
The prisoner, ii devoved upon the defence
20 prove that there WAS NOT. Whethe
this had been done, the Jury would dec ide