The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-08-04
U. .. CRIMINAL CoURT-JUNE TENN. :
SATURDAY, August 2, 1851.


had read from Chitty's Medical Jurisprudence,
346. 346 and wasabout reading from the same book
page 35i, when
Mr.. Bradley said he supposed the intention and
object of citing these authorities was not 10 show
that the law different from what had been
given in the instructions OF the Court
Mr.. Fendall said that he understood the rule TO
be that, when party prayed instructions, that
party could not controvert those instructions; but
that party who had prayed no instructions
at liberty TO go before the jury upon the law and
the facts, the jury IN criminal cases being the
Judge Of both law and fact.
The Court said that he would not allow any
party to argue before the jury any question which
has been decided by the Court upon the request of
either party.
Mr.. Bradey.-The instructions of the Court
granted on the request Of either party WAS the law
OF this tribunal, and neither could controyert those
instructions before the jury. 1t would be shocking
il * were otherwise.
Mr. Fendall said that he was Of the opinion that
the rule was as no had stated; such rule, he be-
heved, made by Judge Dunlop when'in this
court
MIR. Bradley said that where no instructions had
been given to or asked by either party, then the
whole thing was open; but when instructions were
given, then those instructions were the law OF the
court, and could not be argued before the jury
G. The Court said that court having any self-re-
spect would allow il to be done.
MIR. Bradley.-If so, there is no use for judge.
The Court. None whatever. Gentlemen, you
will please confne yourselves within the limits OF
the instructions; they the law OF this case.
Mr. Bradley said he supposed MIR. Woodward
enlargipg upon the law, and citing cases in
contradiction Of the law as Aid down ia the in.
If the other side field tie IT. H. l4es Hey
should have argued the #H 2X f(}yhuc-
tons were prayed. sdch fahe cir
cult court. %S E4t&
The Court said that the de8id39 { t{ho circuit
court was too plain to be mtiihR S&a E3kiRAs fol-
lows: " Counsel not allowed u r8d&Ao the
jury that the Court erred in giving instruchons."
dali h. cnA ff,ssrt ,ia M bayp
been otherwise. He supposed that when party
did not call upon the Court for the law, he was at
liberty 10 argue the law and facts before the jury
Mr.. Bradley said that what he objected to was
reading any authorities the effect OF which was 10
modify controvert the opinion OF the Court. He
would have been glad TO have met the gentlemen
the instructions; but when the Court laid down
the law he objected to going before the jury upon
that law
Mr. Woodward Then understand you to say
shall not read the authorities.
The Court.--You shall not read authorities TO I'M
pugn the decision Of the Court.
Mr.. Woodward closed his books.
The Court.-The Court will not allow you to read
cases to contrayene the opinion of the Court.
Mr.. FendalL-l understood Mr.. Bradley to say
that he had no objection to my asking instructions
at this time.
Mr.. Bradley.--Not at all.
Mr.. Fendall then prayed the following instruc-
tom
TO enttle a prisoner to be acquitted the
ground of insanity, be must, at the time of the
committing of the offence have been SO insane that
he did not know right from wrong.
Mr.. Fendall then argued this instruction. and
cited in support of it the following authorities:
Chitty's Med. Jurisprudence, PIP. 345, 346, 1854;
note to p. 354, and cases there cited; Caring
ton & Kerwan, 129-Higgenson's case; Report of
the Comn's Criminal Law, 10, ll3; 10 Howell
State Trials, 947, 94S-Lord Ferrers's case; 8
Darlington Payne, l65-Oherd's case; HowelPs
State Trials, 696-Arnold's case; Martins case
cited in note to Chitty's Med. Jurisprudence, 1884,
note (K.)
The Court asked if these authorities were cited
in support of the instructions prayed
DIR. Fendall replied in the affirmative.
The Court.--The cases you have read do not
support your instruction. The idea Of the nstruc-
ton has been drawn from that have been re-
pudiated in England long ago.
The instruction was refused.
Mr. Morgan, in opening the defence before the
jury, said that, like his friend, Mr.. Woodward,)
who had entered with much spirit into the
prosecution he was deeply impressed with the
of his inability to do justice to the cause 1t
was a great cause, whether the results involved
the events, the variety of evidence, the remark
able contradictions, be considered. He hoped that
he might extend his congratulations TO the friends
of the defendant, who had nobly rallied round
him throughout this arduous and protracted case.
They never for a moment wayercd. He alluded to
these acts because they spoke much In favor OF the
defendant. Gentlemen on the other side had ex-
hibited much devotion TO the prosecution. This,
however, did not speak much for them; but, on
the contrary, in trumpet tones for the prisoner.
He would not extend his congratulations, to the
same extent, to the prisoner for he had brought a
foul disgrace upon his name, and his sorrow would
flow commingling with his blood 30 long he
shall live But he hoped that he MIR. M might
be enabled to extend his congratulations, after the
verdict of the jury, that this man has not been
guilty of deliberate act. He hoped that when
the jury shall have retired from the sacred portals
of the court room to the more sacred room set
apart for their deliberations, they would con-
cudc that the prisoner should escape from this
fiery ordeal Fiery ordeal, did he cay? He meant
not to aliude to the unutterable wrong committed.
He meant not TO alludc to the conduct OF Mrs.
Fridley in her efforts to separate man and wife,
until che urged him to the brink of suicide; and
who, when she saw the insane hand raised, tanta-
LIKED him. He meant not TO allude to the officers
who cuffed and beat him in the streets He meant
not to speak OF the fire which sprinkled on his
neck; Scott, who went to the Jail to speak to
Day as friend, and then came here to betray him.
He should not stop to inquire into the motives and
lntiuencos which operated on the minds OF his So
called friends, Boss and King But he meant to
allude to the onward career of this prosecution
the effort to shed the prisoners blood. The char
actor of the prosecution, the manner in which IT
had been conducted, wero legitimate subjects for
comment.
The gentleman (Mr Woodward) had said that
technicaities were commenced by the defence.
But what were the factsa From the beginning to
the end of the testimony the defence expressed but
one desire, namely: that every thing should be
opened before the jury. 1t was not until onslaught
was made upon every witness for the defence--t
acter of respectable men, that the counsel of the
prisoner resorted to technicalites.
The most extraordinary harangue he ever heard
was from Mr.. Woodward on yesterday. What
was his opening sentence? That the voice of the
community cried for the blood of this prisoner
This was his opening declaration. Gentlemen,
have you any thing to do with the voice OF this
community What TO you is the voice which re-
sounds outside this court-h ouec? Are these voices
to be heard hercs Are you to listen to witnesses,
or to the rawlings beyond this court room' AS to
the community, the cry is the other way. Is it the
feeling of this community that they would rejoice
80 see a human being hanging in the air /? II, gen
s.lepen. you bring in a verdict of murder, do not
dppbt that there would be joy at one fresde.
lhfteaeo high an opinion of the citizens of Wash
ington to believe TINT there would be Joy at any
other heartbside at the conviction of this man.
The Joy should be the other way, after the trial. if
) il be declared and shown that the man ire
ponsibe agent, and, such, guiltless of the crime
for which he has been arraigned. lfso every right
thinking person and abider by the law will con-
tinue to look to the trial by Jury the great pal
fladium OF our liberties and hopes, and will rejoice
at the result and say that II is just
~ ho af a.