Daily Richmond times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1849-1850, 1850-04-03
CASE OF DIR WEBSTER.

The New York Herald brings us telegraphic report
of the charge of Chief Justice Shaw to the jury, and 1t
must evidently have had powerful influence upon
their minds. In Massachusetts,, and most OF the North
States is the practice for judges to enter Tar more
infinitely into the merits of tried before them, than
judges would be allowedt to do The Chief Justice
considered the proof of DR. Parkman's remains beng
found in DR.. Websers apartments, the main point IN
the case If the Jury were satisfied that these remains
had been really identified by Drs Keep and Noble the
dentists the Judge gave it to be very clearly understood
the Court thought verdict of guilty should be
dered He did not consider the testimony Of Lefield
material to the case or the conduct of the prisoner under
his arrest The following extract from the learned
Judges charge touches very important point
"To come to the main proof of this case, there are
two theories regard 10 it. The government takes the
one which supposes that he invited Dr. Parkman to the
Medical College, and there slew him. IN order TO get
possession of two notes which he owed to Dr. Parkan
and that he got possession Of them. Dr. Parkman had
loaned to Professor Webster $500 in lS4l In 1916
veral parties contributed to another oan to relieve him.
to the amount OF two thousand four hundred and thirty
dollars; to this DR.. Parknan contributed five hun
dred, and the three hundred and thirty-two dol
lars on the old note; and other parties the balance.
DR.. Parkman held the large notes and the mortgage
personal property for its security for the benefit Of
himself and the other parties, and also the old note
which to be given up whenever his share paid
1t appears that the defendant was in possession OF both
either that he invited DR. Parkman to his lecture room
and slew him, to get possession OF these notes II this
be proved it express malice The other theory is that
OF the defence that being together, the one to pay ana
the other to receive money, they grumoled, ana Df.
Webster killed Dr. Parkman in sudden heat, and then
concealed him, to avoid detection i TINS be proved,
it may be manslaughter If Dr. Webster did ence DIR.
Parkman TO the Medical College to get possession of the
notes. we difference between 1t and murder.
The government to strengthen its theory, brings proof
that he could not have had money pay either OF the
notes and he has pretended that he had money
to take up the larger of them. You will judge one
very significant fact is, that the $50 which was that
morning paid to him by Mr.. Pette-a check on the
Freemans Bank not part of the money paid but
that afternoon the next day deposited In the
Charles River Bank, to his credit. He also told Mr.
Pettee that morning. that he had settled with Dr. Park
man, although Dr. Parkman had not yet called on him.
You must judge how tar these crcumstanc go to prove
intention TO get hold OF the notes as motive OF the
| homicide; and if that the motive, i Is very
strong OF murder by express malice IT, IN the ny
pothess OF the defence, the conceament OF the remains
made by another hand, it OF interest to Dr..
Webster and his reluctance towards the search is to be
accounted for as we'll the fact that he did not himself
make the discovery which lay directly in his way"
The fact that the large note found in Websters pos
session. evidence of debt to other parties besides
Dr. Parkman, the whole of which he did not pretend to
have paid off, is point of very great importance and
one to which our attention had been directed before
we read the charge of Judge Shaw. The other cir
cumstance of his telling falsehood the Bank officer
| is also very black.
The ofthe prisoner in addressing the jury, and
arraignng his counsel for the nadequacy of their
defence, is unexampled, SO far informed, in
criminal annals.