The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-03-13

TO the dersion In the case OF Au,tp e citsd hv Mr.
C@a @ onder this iaw, the question is, was there
Inen.ioh 70 Ru The counsel make q very great
mistake when they say that establish the crime of
ufael tnere ust be dslib.rstioD-a prsmeditstion;
XII before hand the instant that he raiscd the
weight enough on the very instant he formed the
vious threats and his disposition TO quarrel and tbsx
wous inquire whethehis was that state 10
law [TAe Judge here reviewed other portion. Of the
testimony IL Is not necessary that the prisoner
did not intend to kii when he entered the store it is
enough, II he form ed the intention the SPOT The
question L. what the intention? II man takes
up pistol and II to strike, they might we'll
that he did net intend to kill but 1t is loaded and
he fires of At person they must infer that he In
tended TO take life. so with this weight II It was
81 the MAN, they might n: a aa no.
head what they to infer but that he intended IL
to be fstslf There Is no contrition expressed, no
show that what previously occurred not intended
II the jury were satisfied that there nten-
ssr and il is 70 convert i, into .nynnr
else. Intoxicstion, instead OF being extenua-
ton OF crime is an sggravston, from the very res-
SON that man places himself in the position
which renders him liable to commit an outrage.
there is view In which 1t may extenuste 1t may bs
any intention to commit murder Is that 90 In this
case! The prisoner was sober enough to 20 from
store to smother end in instance, to cheat them
out OF the pay. fer drink II he sober enough to
DO AL these things the jury may we'll ask themselves
the question IL he not sober enough to do that
the prisoner was too drunk to form intention to
commit tho crime, then they may soquit him. Here
the court defined the lawI Murder IL homicide with
an intention TO kill Msnslaughter is homicide with
out an intention to kill 1t upon the jury the
sporsbility ofthe verdict rests Taking the IL
laid down BY tho court they TO decide upon the
facts He had felt It his duty this OCCASION rcluc
tant ~ he at all times to nct pain state these
views because he felt that he owed duty the peace
and order OF society, and that example WAS necss
sary for the public protection.
The jury retired ct little after six solock and ct
the hour OF going to press, had not sgreed.
THK CHARaEs AGAINST THE DRURYs-THK TORPEDO
CASE.
On the retirement Of the jury In the foregoing case
tho District Attorney said that, In the matter of
Samuel Drury, jun, indicted with Samuel Drury the
elder for an attempt to kill commonly known the
torpedo case, he satisfied that It would be waste
OF public time to place him trial The elder Drury
had been tried twice for the offence On the first
casion the jury did not agree; and, on the second
trial, he was acquitted. The evidence against tho
SON far less than that against the father Of
the witnesses has LETT the country the ether 10 gone
to that bourne whence no traveller returnsr The
District Attorney therefore entered noi rro'equ In
the case.
The District Attorney also entered nolle prosegui
In the case against Samuel Drury the elder charged
With the possession Of forged notes. He had
the conclusion that, II any offence had been con-
mitted, 1t was In the county Of King and there s
an indictment pending against him there for the
same charge the time Of this court ought not be
taken up with 1t.