The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-08-02

ecution OF his purpose, and yet, 10 every crimi-
nal intent, he may be inca pable of committing
a crime in n particular matter. He need NOT
detail 10 the court any particular instances;
but one standing prominent and e-eminent in
this country was the case Of John Randolph,
y man OF moot retentive memory, the most fer
vent imagination, the greatest perception, the
most biting SARCASM, and powerful and over
whelming eloquence. Yet he was deranged on a
| particular subject, with regard to his negroes
This Mr. Bradley proceeded to show, and remarked
| that the capacity TO commit crime depends on the
state of mind at the time of the commission, and Is
not TO be measured by the capacity to make will or
a contract.
This is the only standard by which man is to
! be Judged. Moral causes more frequently unhinge
the mind than any others, and referred TO several
cases OF arrangement; one of a man named Rogers,
who, IN June, 1543, suddenly seized carving knife
and killed Mr.. Lincoln, the warden OF the Massa-
chusetts penitentary, because he thought that the
WARDEN was about to shut him up for the residue Of
| his LIE. IL was deluson. IL was not true, but
Rogers believed IT to be So On the trial the coun-
sci set up the defence of delusion IL was proved
that Rogers said that he would suffer for it. and the
| physician OF the institution pronounced him per-
! iectly sane when he committed the act. But the
court sad if the jury believe that the prsQner was
! aboring under a diseased mind, or that there was
an outbreak or paroxysm OF the disease, the map
not knowing that he committed the crime, he is
not guilty OF the murder. MIR. b. then referred to
the case of Oxford, who shot at the queen. Ok
| ford conceived that he belonged TO the party of
| Young England. Young England, in Oxfords
idea, was to dethronathe queen, and Young Eng
| land was TO rule. He was arrested His counsel
pleaded delusion. The court in that said,
the standard by which you test the capacity to
make will contract is standard for crime.
But if you find that the mans mind was so dis
eased that he did not know he committing
crime, you must say that he is not guilty of MUIR
der.
MIR. Bradley reed The opinion of Chief Justice.
Shaw in the case of Rogers, reported in 7th Met
calie, 500, and paper on the same case published
in the 18th VOL Law Reporter, 449; also read the
opinion of Lord Denman, reported in 3Sth vol.
Common Law Reports, 800.
MIR. Fendall remarked that he had nothing ito
say; he objected to the instructions, but would
make no argument upon them.
The Court, after consideration said that it had
been called upon TO give certain instructions The
Court had considered this subject carefully, and had
examined all the cited with and delibe-
ration some time ago. The Court then read the
instructions, and said these instructions nearly
in the same words, certainly they contain the same
principles, laid down by the authorities in the
books. / hold them to contain sound law. and
readily grant them in this case
Mr.. Morgan submitted the following instruc-
ton:
II the jury believe from the evidence that the
prisoner, at any time prior TO the killing Of his
wife, made threats that he would kill some one,
without mentioning his wife'5 NAME they need not
necessarily infer from such threats that the de-
PENDANT harbored malice against his wife when he
killed her.
The Court did not give this instruction. but said:
1t is not for the Court to say what inferences
heard; but may say that you not bound
draw the inference mentioned in the prayer, o
any other particular inference, but you are author
lied to draw any inference that you shall think the
facts proved to your satisfaction warrant you il
drawing
Mr.. Bradley then prayed the following instruq
tom
II from the whole evidence aforesaid the ID
shall find that the deceased married to
prisoner on the 4h of June, 1850, and on the
OF September, 1850, gave birth toH null grus~n
ITfr oh and haFat 4sfri
of the prisoner was, became, and continued dl
eased and he falsely conceived that III consequence
of the said birth, he lad lost character among his
former associates and friends, and was no longer
held in esteem among them; that such conception
unwarranted and unscund delusiou which
affected his intercourse with society," and that such
deusion increased in intensity until hi5 mind be-
came diseased thereby, and he thereafter was subject
to great, causeless and violent paroxysms OF rage,
produced by such diseased state of his mind:
And if they shall further find, that in such par
oxysm of causeess rage his power of distinguish
ing whether he committing crime or not
was, by ouch paroxysm, for the time destroyed or
superseded, and in such paroxysm, and while
such power OF distinguishing was destroyed or su-
perseded, he committed the act with which nc
stands charged, then he is not in law guilty of
murder
Mr.; Fepdan objected = the lnstrnotiaa, eutde-
The Court granted the instruction.
After some little delay il was determined to ar
que the case to the jury
commencing at twenty minutes past three O'Clock.
and concluding at fifteen minutes past elk o'clock.
The prosecution he said, did not 60 stand here
asking for blood,' but for what will hereafter pre-
vent others from the shedding of blood They stood
up for high and holy duty; that this man and
others may know what vice, and error, and sin,
will yeld to, and the punishment which will fol-
low; that they may know that "thc wages OF SIMS
death" And what was the case on which the jury
were called upon to act !? 1t was, member OF So
ciety has died, has fallen, and fallen suddenly
xl,s,e~ 10, hau hpan
presented, that member of society has fallen unprc-
pared-totally, totally unprepared. She had not
only fallen, but killed, not by sudden shalt
from the hands of the Almighty, but by the hand
of another member of society. She fell almost in
the public streets of the city-in the spring time OF
life, when all was love, and gayety, and glad
ness-in the evening, when the passions and labors
of the day had spent themselves. She fell right IN
the centre of her own family, in the presence OF
her father and her mother, in tho presence OF her
friends. And, was mentioned III the lndlct-
ment, after being shot, she lanGushed, and, IAN
gushing, did die in about forty minutes after be-
ing shot, How sudden was her summons! III she
had fallen by the act of an assassin, the crime
would have been less revolving; but she Tell by the
hands of her husband and he, too, IN the SPRING
time of life. Yes, che was destroyed by the man ,
who solcmnly bound to protect and to cherish
her
Mr. Woodward said that he felt, as doubt the
Jury did, in this CASE world of responsibility and
a mountain of care. II the Of John Day,
who on the 18th of May, 1851, committed the
crime OF murder. lie lnen PROCEEDED 10 state, III
the language of the law, what the offence of muir
der is insisting, by referring to testimony, that
the prisoner harborcd the malicious purpose, and
intended to kill his wife; and that there were
antecedent threats.
Did the jury believe, from the evidence. that
there was delusion? There doubt that he
killed her. When he first ehot her, he hoped and
supposed that the wound had resulted in death;
but when he saw her arm raised in an attitude OF
duplication, and when she imploringly called his
name, John," in endearng manner, il was
said by witnesses that he shot her again There
was, then, no doubt, associated with the evidence
of physicians, that he caused her death.
He then argued that there were former grudgcs;
that witnesses had shown that there the bascst
grudges; and that there was much elaboration on
the part of Day with regard to killing his wife.
He knew what he was about But he said that ne
driven to the act. We admit that he
driven to it, as every other person is driven who
takes the life Of fellow being and John Day
should suffer- not alone for his foul deed, but that
society may know they have some safeguard to
which they can fly; that they may have some city
Of refuge-safe, always within their reach-whero