The republic., 1851-08-05

and that OF Sears. with reference to Day eating
grass dancing, &c, and rdculed the idea that
these things were evidences of insanity. Sears
had been turned out of the house by Mrs. Fridiey,
and gave his testimony under the influence OF re-
sentiment; and his vindictive spirit shown IN
his equlyocating answers 90 questions inputing 10
er, and appreciation of the murder of Mrs. Day.
MI y. referred to the testimony Of Mr. and
Miss Brewers, Dawson, Maxwell, Beach, levener,
Conner, Williams, and othcrs, and analysed IL for
the purpose Of showing that the conduct of Day,
on tue occasions to which they seyerally alluded,
did not indicate insanity.
In the course Of his remarks he examined the
history of Days courtship and marriage, as indi-
eating his character and his motives, which did
not appear to be more elevated and pure. He mi
nutely examined the testimony of Mr. Pommnitz-
key, and argued from 1t that Day knew that his
wife was unchaste before he married her. This
testimony confirmed to some extent by that of
Mrs. Little. Knowledge, even strong suspicion
on this head on the part of Day. ID fatal TO the the
ory of the defence
He went into an argument to show that the
threats and i'll usage which the deceased received
from the prisoner were not inconsistent with the
sort OF love which he felt for her; that Mrs. Day,
though an erriDg woman. was kind, amable, and
attractive; that Mrs. Wood was solitary witness
who testified differently these points; and that
much allowance was to be made for Mrs. Wood
pleading for her son, but none could excuse her
malignant aspersions Of the deceased. On these
points she was not sustained by any of the other
Witnesses, the whole current of whose testimony
negatives the idea that Mrs. Day capable of
using the language imputed TO her by Mrs. Wood.
Solictude for her son may perhaps have so far con-
fused her recollection that she attributed TO Mrs.
Day words which were, in reality, uttered by her
IL is clear from her own statement that she turned
Mrs Day out OF her own house There was only her
version of the story; but that sufficiently sug
gests to what ofoutrage oppression Mrs.
Day subjected while a member of her family.
Mrs Little bore testimony to the amiable qualities
OF the deceased; and in one, ut least OF Mrs.
d. H[a Ha.l -ta4i
Whitmore. The jury had been reminded of the
advantages of oral examination of witnesses. Never
were they more apparent than in the case OF Mrs.
Wood. The jury must have noticed the facility
with which she delivered her evidently prepared
statement in support of the defence, and the diff
Guilty with which answers were extracted in the
course of the examination.
MIR. f. then minutcly noticed and commented
upon tire remark OF Day, that he knew for killing
his wife he would go to the penitentiary. He had
studied the precedent in Campers CASE in whose
trial he had been summoned witness. His
friend Dawson had told him that, in case similar
to Days. The would make penitentary actofit; and
Day had told King on his way TO the scene of the
murder that he would kill some one that hight, as
he knew that he would go TO the pententary; but
he did not for that. He did not, to be sure,
state the law correctly it was but referred to its
practical operation. Here was act Of reason
contrary TO the outburs of passion, which ia attri
buted to his pretended delusion. The outburst
Immediately followed by another, for there
two shots. If there deliberation
and malice in any case, they would be found here.
The District Attorney expressed some surprise
that il should have been supposed for moment
that the United States did not rely orftbe intoxi
cation of the prisoner characteristic Of his crime
They had proved it beyond doubt by n number
of witnesses and by Days own admissions that he
had been intoxicated from four O'Clock, when he
rode with Whaley in his omnibus, until the mo-
ment of the fatal deed. The law il that intoxica-
ton, instead of extenuating, aggravatcs crime.
MIR. Bradley admitted this TO be the law.l His
conduct after the murder was then examined,
showing that, after the murder, he in full pos
session OF his reasoning faculties, though he had
been inilamed by liquor.
In the conclusion, Mr.. Fendall said that he had
presented the most material facts in the case. He
deemed ii unnecessary to say any thing TO deepen
the convic ton which rested on the jury of their
grave responsibility. The prisoner had had fair
trial, and he glad of it. He desired that every
accused party should have fair trial, and should
not complain If prisoner was to have not only a
fair trial, but trial passing fair The prisoner.
he said, now stands before you, and you will do
him justice, am sure, and give him the benefit oi
| any reasonable doubt, but not of merely shadow
OF doubt, as was suggested by one OF the prison
ers counsel. You will also dojustice to the public,
whose destnies well those of the prisoner,
in your charge on this issue. My friend, Mr..
Bradley has reminded you of the common law as
adapting itself to the necessities OF society. In
every stage of the history of the common law, from
it's origin to the present day, there is necessity
| of society which has always been paramount and
|
crime like this is TO go unpunshed, where is the
safety of society-wbere is the safety of any man
woman, or child, among its members? A disre
gard of this law would separate society into III
original elements.
You will, gentlemen, in considering the de-
fence, look at the evidence in support of it, and de
| termine whether the counsel for the prsoner have
made out a case of insanity. If you believe from
the evidence that he insane you will of course
acquit him; but, in scrutinizing that evidence
you should look closely to the social danger o
maintaining such defence unless it be clearly
made out. Should you be of opinion that the de
fence Is not made out, you will, am sure, marct
firmly, however painfully, up to the duty which
the law devolves on you, in pronouncing verdict
of guilty.
The penalty in this case is death, a penalty pre-
| scribed by the law which you sworn to enforce
in case in which you believe it has been incur
red. You will not be deferred by false and in
| appropriate idea of mercy in discharging your
duty, and your full duty. If you had, as you
have not, any speculative discretion on such sub
ect, you WILL perhaps, concur in the opinion lately
expressed in France on a proposition which hao
been introduced in the legislature of that country
to abolish the taking of human life. ssI shall bt
ready to do so,'' said one, "but the murderert
| must first set the example"
Mr. Tcndall concluded by saying that he woulc
commit this case to the jury in language better
than he could employ himself ITO acqut," says
Mr. Starkic in bis Treatise on Evidence, upor
light, trivial, and fancful suppositions and remote
conjeotures, is virtual violation ofhe jurors oath
and an offence oil great magnitude against the IN
erests of society, directly tending to the disregard
of the obligation of Judicial oath, the hindrance
and disparngement of justice, and the encourage
nent of maefactors. On the other hand, juror
ought to condemn unless the evidence exclude
from his mind all reasonable doubt the guilt
OF the accused, and has boen well observed
unless he be so convinced by the evidence that be
would venture TO act upon that conviction in mat
ters of the highest concern and importance to his
| own Interest,"
| Mr. Bradley read the instructions to the jury.
! The courtroom densely crowded by persons
of all ages. The prisoners friends were thronged
around the box, intensely interested in his fate
The prisoner stood up and leaned oyer the railing,
laughing pleasantly, and talking with numerous
! persona around him.
| The jury expressed desire that. before the case
was put finally into their hands, they might be al.
lowed to take their dinner which was agreed to.
| At twenty minutes before six O'Clock the jury
were reassembled and the indictment was given
them; they Immediately retired in the charge oi
! special bailils.
| At ten minutes before seven o'clock note wa,
received from the jury addressed to the Court, ask
ing whether they could find any verdict other than
/ guilty or not guilty.
The Court sent for the jury, and told them they
had the Dower to find n verdict of ma nslau qhter