Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1852-07-20
WHO MEETING ON FRIDAY NIGH /.

Trent
nsi in ,hr catne 10 dire tn Administrations me p"e'
behind the throne may be greater han the throne ''Ss'
WING MEETING ON FRIDAY MIGHT.
rhe ,yo hours and hal: Of iir. Hdi's--ino
Jucsd nv Mr. mcfarland occasion, not as 'e "
dirdual" but as The Honorable Mr. b9tts vas '"'"
pce iAilGrc He dragged more THAI wo ever h"e" '''
He had not gotten the "uatowafa circumstances %
the fees. RA7ricATisS meeting on The |"''' f''''
and ia aon1v lree cen, c,ndls II necessary we may
rcler to hsreufer The meeting was Respectable III nun
here bu no, larger Than The Democratic meeting and no
twentieth rs enthusiastic. Scottish 10 s'i Gs'i
business in the Gibraltar -
TO The Editors ofths Enquirer;
C;en,lemen- mad hope: there would have been 10 occa
zion ON my par 10 trouble you Tho public win en' INT
,brr nniic, of The Chester. The remarks, however
If Msmbcr OF the Bar" your Saturday, paper seem
10 call for explanations aEh neg 10 a"d 'r' " WY
nf srpulement, 10 my letter OF the YIN inst
ynnr curresnondent referring opinion expressed IN
nv former let which lie represents rae 10 have ald down
a. law" submits THAI was clearly wrong. clam u" , tx
emp,inn from the lot 10 nii the sons ." a'a ne
opluas Of The hahest tribunals, are not hn'feqn''
reversed by the very which pronounced heni nr
an This nccasnn At least given trust win all occon'
in, il NAV wrOnc-and onglt TO teel IN
der an obligation a Member Of the hat Tor lHe very
haucrng estimate he makes o It's nissinV"nS ''"'-
,nre md the sns h. has taken 10 correct IT, For any er'
-ors nv rrr may contun apology may ~ found IN
the fact tina, it fo The most part written bct"n" me
nr,rnn and midnight Of The day which closed my n"ci#l
.sors while the clerk entering Inc hnn crstcs ' u
term las yu,t: ,nrrespon lent II member OF the l>c"h
/ Bar mus; kn1w,)-of almost uneNampea pfssnrei ai'
rrr:ed 10 h prsss the morning 10 disausc me public
mind IF pcyudces created by gronndless nr"ta"on upon
Tho official conduct Of an absent brother
Bu 10 The point: Is the opinion, fairly Interpreted cTf0'
nenHa? ,: :, ,,-,.
ttort questions OF Inc opinion gave was attend
cd refer TO IL" question bsoTe ns sFsH ,hI -
-pr,l OF CHESTER LAWFUL Tie rono-i'!'h ma,
@ ,.u,;urI of striking lrih infant 10 hA cannot after.
,rard, be conrced Gf murder in The mr. @f5fss may "s
ID NV. h,,n stated generally ""' Ms" "!'afJ
s ,,r,h i'm, .r,nr nUt noticed ny your corespcn
WIZ, - lu:cr In the frs! degree, as IN" same
'nfag WIN "iui deliberate aud aiout7 nnrccr tor, al
though deliberate and malicious murder presume
der IN tie first degree, there Other murders Of the first
degree winch may no perhaps be properly termed teioe
udm moreover that in sayng reason for my opin-
inn that murder in the first degree tho in
tenton 10 Kill! IN essential Ingredient" there want
of Que precision In distinguishing between an acua and
implied intention FFankly admitting ." ms, your cor
respondent will the cundor concede that the
RICHNESS OF the opinion he combais is Ia he tried by refer
ence question was called consdcr-narnely, rhe
ther Chesters second trial naS ld9fM! ihat - The
question suppose on which he make up issue,
and ii 1t is any Other have no design discuss it.
In combating the idea that intention an essential in
pien - constitute murder in The first degree your
rpondent says In the OF person charged with hav
ing committed murder by striking another the intention to
KILL so being an essential Ingredient has nothing
Ia do i'll, the cas-. ind is entirely Irrelevant strongly
suract 4 hc.nacr OF Bar has himself fnen into
error The of correcting ianc, for although there may
be cases neutrality-suspicious. in the first degree-in
which may be necessary 10 prove an .cina Intention
10 ki vet aopr.hcEd The put By a Member OF the
Bar" anrdcr f he murder in the first rgrcC b
STRIKING simply, III "hr: party b. convict
ed without prUu OF actual vital, deliberate intention In
kill | viii not l5y dawn h!s as lasv. have no ,me
inclination examine t. and too little confidence in
knowledge .! criminal law, 10 hazard positive opinion
in conflict with tina! confidently announced by your
learned correspondent.
To rc,u,n: WAS net altogether ignorant Of the doctrine,
that in mary there may he conviction of murder
without proving actual purpose 10 Kill; but am very
FIJI from thinking that this doctrine Is well settled app
cah $3.50 degree,
ii that be by "A hemic7 OF The Pa7-ihat in such
cases the intention is entirely Irrelevant Let briefly
| notice his authorities.
Jones' case OF deliberate, premediiateL murder.
The question did arise OF dispensing with proof ..
tua Intention The evidence proved IL the satisfaction 81
tie court that he acted throughout with the deliberate and
arousd purpose of shedding blood and they held him gail
ty Of " S:Ifu deliberate, ard prcnclntrd killing" A.
the question: therefore, whether il necessary pr,
ncaal inentpr does appear lave been properly be-
fore h%n will LOSE No time in discussing tie general pre-"
| positions aud oGtt,r dicta quoted on thar point
The opinion Judge LUriaI in he Of McWhict and
FERGUSON, cited To SNOW that where, sudden
vocation one b,a,s another in cicI manner that he
dies the assaianr though death intended IS guilty.
Of murder. Docs A Nctbrr 81 the Bar mean 10 say
thai such killing On Sudden prospcalion wnn! BE- MURDER
in The drgreG2 II 50, with due scf"rrccr ds from
Linn IN opinion. Judge Lnriss iniraei no such idea.
n@re cc- BY has renatks 10 ave been whence 81 de.
liberation tr part OF the prisoner Int re waivc! all "pn
ion i' decree O. murder. expressly "n"a ~" ground
ts: thai qics rr0phcniri tor a5iHic lt!cn
! So much :or OF McVh:rt and Fertu=,
| la IliIs he Cuast did - hcHher vl tho Bar
says lciieIh toms express themselves coHcr "ii n"
reasoning Cuuri jones case liz terms nj Tie
s,. rlu,!rr IN III. fire.: end dcer"
Blu, ,icy ruLu have rn1i 10 shy lie. 10 raie Cut
case murder In The first d;er the c". ri Intention was
'.rrc!.vrn" urde' stood tHeG 10 mean tr"cir ,c COO
,1a!y Judge DaGcau, i"crir@ III onlnn: Il 'hc MA
joY OF The Court, expressly Gays la "ri to elevate me
offence murder the second 70 nlr!=r III lie hsi @"
gree tcrc mus nc pr0 HAT Tic accused d>5trGtec thu
being proved il is material how recently III" 6ci5el atic"
r,c. ri hiling: and then e tells that the nrans Of
proise Intention independent Of omissions Of the homi
eide are furnished by lc rule !ra man saai be taken 10
| ;pl. "a he or
necessary consequence OF mir act."-fChng Stark. hvd
73S
The remaining chs, referred s thst of Suut!er. In
pcp.ntls Of the fact that This prosecutDn under the
eyp,.ss words Of the statute, declaring that G murter By
ma Icious vital ard excessive winnipeg md beating or
Other cr. treatment torture shall teen,.! rider III
tic fret degree the Court upon the facts stated their belief
tina, he records u criminal Jurisprudence did NOT contain
cas-, NJ 2irocGis ard ctcG cruelty. The Court unne
ssay perhaps have expressed opinion that
sliag ~ the mentioned in the statute w"uiG
amount nvIdef in the frat degree, honsh Heath might
no, .vc Inended and pened!.ed That question, rs
Jone cage does no. APPEAR 10 have arisen upon Inc ac
in DH'h resulting rom acts OF H"at aitac'oCs
ana weed c:ry, cuuic M" said have seen
ire del: tins otEer dcun cannot hut rcga'd IL
wa, uot ..y dr-enic! from Judge Leigh who hld that
,asUtc murder in tic frs: tssce. there mas. - w
in lion L. si!.' but Is rnIcl? i-rec11gaahe with the
opit Of tie Court, above quoted from sii!is Case
Sunposc however that the doctrine i, that IN
Of murder in tie first degree there may VIC
ton without proof that the accused intended 10 kldnei
tie doctrine mean any thing tan that il IL not n"ccs
say 10 prove actual intention, inisrtion IN point Of
MOI IN every order TO CONVEX
in the first dcGe, neccssa? 10 prove ae az fctU men
lion or facts from which intention must ne rtSuMsd
TINS should infer, indeed oil ,la; r".:; by the
Cour, in Jones Thei. language is that there s
necessity ITO establish The acl that homicide intend
edn That there may be such thing az constructive in
ten,ioD 0. intention IN point Of law appcats lhHS :m
the very Of The rule cited BY Judge Duncan, "ha
man saa t7k>E TO intend what he daen what is the i'm
mediate essaTy consequence Of his act may
not actually design tn roke life bat if he does take under
circum aordng sufficient excuse the law pre-
sumes he intended to kill or what is line aing intend
ed the consequence OF his act which DEATH II this
view b. correct, "a Member of the Barr will perceive that
his objection my proposition a verbal crciem
and that my opinion which, properly stated s that i1-
lion actual presumed Is essential ingredient in the