The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1846-09-27
Trial OF Spencer for the MurGer or mis- VIE
In Jersey City.

Trsai Of spencer for tn. M.rSsF or MS wa.
In Jersey City.
COURT OF ovrN AND rrNm,sra, HuoeeN CO.. VI
Before Chief Justice Hornblowsr "a Judges John
Tonnelle junr, James Donnell John 0rinith, John
G. speer, c. Van Wrinkle, and Geo. c. DeKay.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL concluded h16 address to the
Jury in the course of which he was Interrupted by
the sudden and melancholy death in Court Of MIR
IN bs .nI o hs In an apo
plectic fit which causedsmuch confederation in Court
Mr. scudder appeared to be about ~ years Of age and
died almost instsnter and with scarcely sigh escaping
from his lips The Chief Justice mmsdhiey adjourned
the Court for hourand ahsf and the Court again met
Attorney General during which he took occasion to pro-
nounce high eulogy on the deceased. who had beena
respectable resident citizen and long distinguished
member OF the bar in the county Of Essex.-he con
cluded.
The CHIEF JUSTICE here commensurate charge the
jury having read his address from manuscript in tremu
lous and sometimes inarticulnte tone q voice The
sd nG .s sss
Sesion with the tral.boih Witnesses: counsel and
Court The responsibility rested With the jury-s
the issue they had to try in relaon to the prisoner
Every feeling mind could not but Be- impressed with
also for the fate Of the prisoner h3ss spon hi. solemn
occasions and Continued the Ghisf Justice, lifting his
the solemn, has suddenly taken away in our pre-
sence here to-day, who had been respected aud
peril is at hand-to make sensible. that should
guard well actions the faculties that
then 10 saS Il
his intention, he said, to make any comment the evil
asncs in the ca'enCr was nscssaTy he was a.
duty of the court to declare the law, by which
had been said in the course Of this trial. that he jurors
were to be the judges Of the leNand he believed in
true that in one sense they wee The Jurors had this
power in crimna in this State to determine the
man for the offence with which he Is charged they are
the judges that offence By the ackno pn-
that the a
States the law of the land was binding upon the jury
nent Of the law direct the jury to act UPON the law The
of the court II comms one. can he removed by
hgne, court But inc not to
lar error and show how f their duties appropriately
extended and If the jurors should acquit the
the motives, the grounds upon which they acquitted
should upon their according their
case stood indicted for the of Adene Mary spen
To this indictment he pleaded not guilty; in man
the legal point. connsces with homicide r h al
knew what homicide. He would state the law the
subject The hrst question that arose vas whether the
had been murdered beyond all doubt The nex'
question was who committed the murderer rather
by the hand Of the prisoners the bar This fact
denied. But the third enquiry was and it was
most important one in the cs.e what the nature OF
the homicide and if criminal to what extent it
was it manslaughter murderer if murder it
murder in the first or degree? II was excuse
BILE homicide they should render verdict in the second
degree, providing they believed the prisoner
responsible man, and capable Of committing crime
slider more fully hereafter. In the mean time he
would proceed TO tell them of the various kinds Of hom
cide also he would point out what facts and crcumstan
essential to constitute the crime of murder
The manuscript here defined the usual Interpretation
which be found the books and continued if the
usabie1 He did not deem Il Necessary to specify ali
the circumstances whence the killing of another may be
ustable no defence of that kind being set up in the
case-then must be either manslaughter or murder
Mansaughter was killing q man by heat ofpasson; and
ban ann & on thu the o. a % & ne
wife, After further explaining the nature of murder and
homicide according to Interpretation oflaw, and dwelling
upon the malice aforethought which the chief in
gredient to constitute murder to premcditation it
need not be for day, an hour, or even minute but
even moment before the blow and therefore premedi
taton established ii was murder There
of constructive murder and thsanding the differ
ence which distinctly marked letween the first and
second degree it for the jury say whether the
prisoner was guilty He would now come to the circum'
bs msSn # The Wisconsin was a. The time
Of the committing of the murder II the prisoner was in
sane. he was not amenabe at all by law-not accouna-
BILE for the committed by him while in that state
If he committed the homicide while in that state, such
person is not amenable at all HIS in sense only
responsible for he ought to be excluded from society in
order that those under the protection Of the law not
be injured by him. Was the prisoner insane the time
he committed the murderl Before entering upon this,
he felt due to the counsel for the defence to state that
there not the least grounds to say that the defence
degree case,
contrary, if i was set up good faith upon any
trial it tho present The painful history of
as on in
In saying this he not to be supposed to indicate
opinion whether the defence had had not been
tanned That wa, question for the jury and he did not
feel himself called upon any responsibility,
which the faithful discharge Of his ocla duty did not
impose upon him. difficult define what insanity
was-all had notion of tiff they q man that was
insane they all would know he was insane If he COM
mitted some atrocous act that time and had his
| sen not mo- w al 10 wa e
not be hsld responsible The simple question for the
jury was, whether tho accused at the time Of commit
ting tho act conscious il one which he ought
not to do If they determined he conscious Of what
he doing-that he ought not to do ithe ought to
was not conscious Of the act moral point of view
they ought to acquit lie ought perhaps at this stage
he had made but counsel and tine law would require of
him to lay down the rule Of law that should govern
mark that the law presumed sane until the ques
ton to the contrary was proved Tho evidence on this
head ought be clear and satisfactory II the evidence
leaves il doubtful question at all-f in such case,
that is if were doubtful whether the prisoner had
committed the act, the jury ought to acqut-by giving
the prisoner the benefit OF the doub-so says the law
Every presumed innocent until his guilt proved
But where it is admitted he committed The act and
insane at the time he committed, the jury ought to find
against the prisoner but he did not mean to say the
jury should consider him sane, if there shadow Of
doubt ON this point what he meant to say was that
where there was evidence of his being the
SIDE and OF insanity on the other. il leaves the question
in the scale whether is to be held responsible for
the act but in either the jury h,d right to say
that the evidence clear and satisfactory order
acqu him. II the prisoner had be insane and that it
proved that his senses had been subsequ ently
restored, and was in his right mind-,hat is.
that he capable of listing uishing between
right and wrong, he should be held responsible
II all this proved against any person,
under such circumstances they be excused
His having been insane severpl times may
der il more probable when he committed the homicide :
but standing by, this proved nothing when the
showed that he had returned to But there
independent evidence that he then the foI OF
insanity increases the responsibility iorit The
marks may be said Of the insanity in the family, for
standing alone it amounted to nothing II was evi
dence that the prisoner the time of the ho
micde but 1t increases the probability that he may have
been cumulative testimony of this fact IL
families subject to insanity than others
and also that some members of families Affect
ed than others; but, standing Alone this nothing
This ground OF defence he would repeat was of avail
unless they believed doubt from all
the ev dence. that the prisoner insane In