The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-07-22
TRIAL OF JOHN DAY.
On the charge Of having murdered has iDife Catherine
Virginia Day, on tAe 18Th Of May. 1851.
U. S. CRIMINAL CoURT-JuxE TENN.
MONDAY, July q, 1851.
[REPoRrED ron rHE RnpUDLro. I


ing, on the 18th of May last, murdered his wife,
Catherine Virginia Day. The prisoner presented
most youthful appearance, and looked but little
altered or changed by his imprisonment.
A few minutes before eleven o'clock the pris
oner was arraigned
The indictment contains two counts. The first
charges him with having, on the 18th day of May,
1851, wifully, deliberately, and with malice afore
thought, killed and murdered Catherine Virginia
Day, by means of leaden bullet discharged from
pistol fired by the said John Days the said leaden
bullet having entered the left side of e.. V. Day
between the eighth and ninth ribs, causing wound
ten inches in depth and half inch in breadth, of
which wound she died within forty minutes The
second count varies from the first only in that the
pistol ID described as a revolver, and that the
wound was inflicted by bullet discharged from
of the barrels of the same, and that it entered
her left side between two of her ribs, causing her
death, sc.
The plea Of not guilty made by the counsel,
J. II. Bradley and E. C. Morgan, for the accused;
P. r. Fendal, district attorney, and w. r. Wood
ward, for prosecution.
The process of empanelling jury was then
commemorative court deciding that the three
following questions should be put TO the jurors,
affirmative answer upon oath TO either of which
would disqualify the juror.
''lst. Have you at any time formed or expressed
an opinion, or even entertained an impression
which would influence your conduct a Juror in
the trial OF this case?
''2d Have you any bias or prejudice on your mind
for or against the prisoner
"3d. Have you any conscientious scruples about
finding man guilty OF capital offence, if the evil
dence required iH''
The regular panel was then called singly and
the questions propounded to each. The result was
as follows:
A. II. Quantrill answered all the questions in the
negative; challenged peremptorily.
VIM. Cammack; same.
James Barnard, excused on account of illness.
Rezin Beck had formed an opinion; set aside.
James X. Plant answered all questions iii the
negative; challenged
Motley L. Adams, sworn.
l.. w. Worthington answered negatively, and
was then challenged.
Humphrey o. Whtmorc answered first question
in affirmative; set aside.
Edmund Bradford, sworn.
Samuel Wardell answered the first and second
questions In the negative, and to the third said
have scruples; would not like to take away life
would rather shut man up in prison than take his
life.
Mr.. Bradley asked whether the jurors scruples
were any thing more than political feelings; and
whether he had scruples which would prevent his
convicting in a capital case, where the evidence
would requircit?
Mr.. Wardell-I do not know that l have.
Mr. Fendall argued that the jurors scruples did
not allow him to act unbiased on the question
Mr.. Bradley replied, oontending that the only
inquiry was whether the scruples of the juror
would prevent his finding verdict of guilt where
the punishment DEATH
The Court ruled that the question to be asked
was, would the juror be influenced by his scruples
against verdict Of guilt in a capital case, when
the law and evidence required the conviction?
Mr.. Bradley-Or whether he knows of "higher
law'' than the Constitution and laws of the United
States?
Mr.. Wardell said his rcruples would not prevent
his finding verdict according to the law and evil
dence; and he was then sworn.
Gabriel Barphill had formed an opinion; set
aside.
s. t. Drury challenged.
b. E. Hays had formed an opinion.
William s. Mcpherson, Samuel Hanson, John
McDermott, Edmund Birkhead, and G.. Az Bohrer,
had all formed an opinion, and were set aside.
William Tucker had conscientious scruplcs
about convicting in capital cases, and was set
aside
Ohio T. vcrmion and James Clephane were
challenged
John b. Scrivener, Charles Mann, John A. Ruff.
and Eugene Laporte were
The regular panel being now exhausted, the
following talesmen summoned:
Charles IL. Lane, John Davis, David Baird, VIM
s. Clary, and Enoch Ridgeway were challenged;
and L. b. Griffin, G. w. Hinton, w. II. Craig, G.
w. Stroud, John Z. Harbaugh, John S. Anderson,
James e. Powers, John w. Baden, A. Coyle, jr.,
John r. Dale, Henry Lee, George McNeir, Will
liam Wilson, James Williams, G. W. Cochrane,
aside on account of having formed opinions.
William D. Acken was set aside because of con-
scientious scruples.
Charles Turner, Thos j. Williams, Charles F.
Lowrcy. Elijah p. Taylor, and Lewis Wright were
sworn.
The jury, being now complete stand az follows:
Motley l.. Adams, Edmund Bradford, Samuel
Werdel, John B. Scrvener, Charles Mann, John
A. Ruff, Eugene Laporte, Charles Turner, Thos. J.
Williams, Charles F. Lowrey, Elijah p. Taylor,
and Lewis Wright.
The jury then sworn, aad charged with the
case. The witnesses for the prosecution were then
all sworn and a motion was made on the part of
the defence that the United States witnesses be
cludcd from the courtroom during the opening
speeches, and during the examination OF each
other.
Mr.. Fcndall resisted that part of the motion
which went to the exclusion of the witnesses during
the opening speeches.
Mr.. Bradley replied, and the Court ruled that
the witnesses be excluded before the case was
opened.
Mr. Fendall moved to include in the exclusion
the witnesses for the defence.
Mr. Bradley opposed this, and was replied to by
Mr.. Fendall.
The Court ruled that all the witnesses be removed
from the courtroom, and kept out of it till called
to testify.
The witnesses, numbering forty, were then called
over, and were provided with rooms in the upper
story of the east wing of the building.
Mr.. Fendall then remarked to the jury that the
Issue upon which they were sworn was a most Sc
rious one He had no desire to say any thing cal
culated to excite their feelings, but he thought the
facts themselves as they would be detailed by the
witnesses would present case 10 which no rhetoric
could give darker hue. 1t was ordinary case.
1t was the of the brutal and deliberate murder
of a wife by her husband, while in the domcile of
her parents, whittier she had fed for protection
from the outrages and brutality of her husband.
Mr.. f. then gave the history of Mr. Frdley, the
father of the deceased, who after living here some
years, removed from the city, and his return, the
deceased, his daughter, was grown-up girl. She
became acquainted with Day, their acquaintance
ripened into affection, and he sought her in mar
riage. They we're married. On the 4th of June,
1850, those fatal vows spoken; those vows
which have resulted in her death by the hand of the
husband who had sworn to love her and to cherish
her. For some time after their marriage they re-
sided with her parents; they resided there till
sometime in February last. They then left there
and went housekeeping. Some time in March, 80
great was his cruelty and i'll treatment, she left
him and returned to the protection of her fathers
roof
Day came there, and so violent was his conduct
that the poor girl, fearing collision between him
and her father with all the confidence of woman's
love, put faith in his promises of reformation, and
again left there to reside elsewhere with him. But
his horrible and cruel treatment of her continued,
and about the Sth of April she had again to seek