Daily American telegraph., 1852-01-31

VIM. Roach, svoyn.-Saw Wells whengoing out
cunning he seemed to have been drinking
Cyoss-sramiasd By Prosecution. Can't say ne
was positively drunk It was about han-past
four. III
y. w. Atchison, recalled By the Prosecution -Ihe
word strike, as used before the coroner was
qualified by saying it was only intended to show
the motion made by the deceased In the scnffie
By Defenee.-Had used the word strike only as
now explained.
James Buchanan, sWorn.-Know prisoner since
l848 he was then bailiff, when he came into
my Office in Baltimore / was magistrate when
he came, gave him ground rents, &c., to collect.
To my surprise, after time, he came to my
office intoxicated; spoke to him; ne apologized
advised him to Join temperance society think he
said afterwards he had done SO; heagain appeared
drunk, and when so he was quarrelsome; when
sober he was gentle as a child, and always ready
to do any favor; when in liquor he appeared to
lose all manner of control over himself.
BIZ Prosecution. Prisoner lived with witness
about two years
I John Robaasoa.--Saw prisoner take glass OF
ale before going out cunning.
BIZ ProsecuhOn.-Don't know OF his having
drank more. 1t was about half-past three o'clock
Mr.. Morgan, announcing that the testimony
on the part Of the defence was concluded, asked
of the court to instruct the jury to the law in
the case.
Mr.. Fendall objected to the proposition as If
regular
The Court remarked that the defence had
right to submit whatever point for instruction it
pleased and suggested that counsel submit their
points of instruction in writing. agG >
Mr.. Chiffon asked the court to instruct the
jury-frst, if the jury believed, from the evil
dence, that the prisoner was not OF a sane mind
Al 20 &l,a fhay
are bound to acquit him ; OF, if they believed the
prisoner, from the use of strong drink, imme-
diately preceding, or from any constitutional eff
feet of drinking, was laboring under state of
mind depriving him of rightful exercise OF
reason, that then the jury are bound to acquit
the accused. g 5& sga
Mr.. McKim objected to the instruction, upon
the ground of its setting up the principle that
drunkenness is to be taken as legal insanity
Mr.. Chiffon then SO modified his instruction as
to declare that, if the jury shall believe the
laboring under insanity of mind, whether consti-
tutional or otherwise, then they arc bound to
acquit him. fDrz
Mr. Fendall spoke in objection; and Nh. Chill
ton defended the instruction.
The Court read numerous authorities respect
ing the commission Of crime under the influence
of liquor deducing therefrom that though drunk
enness per Sc, is no excuse for the commission OF
crime, yet it may 60 to the jury as a fact in the
establishment of intention. In regard to the
special instruction ordered the Court said to the
jury:
''If they believe, from the evidence, that the
defendant was insane at the time of the commits
sion of the crime charged he is not responsible
for it. Insanity may be permanent and one
afflicted with it cannot be guilty of any crime. If
insanity is occasional the jury, to excuse the de-
PENDANT, must believe from the evidence that he
was insane at the time of the commission OF the
act. If insanity was occasioned by habitual
drunkenness, it is an excuse for an act done by
the party while so insane, but not at the time
under the influence of liquor. With this qualif-
cation as to drunkenness, it matters not from
what cause insanity proceeds, if it exists
Mr. Chiffon submitted second instruction,
declaring that if the jury shall believe that the
prisoner, at the time of firing the gum was de-
priyed of his reason by the influence of passion,
and was under the control of passion instead of
reason, then they must acquit the accused.
The Court gave the following directions to the
jury;
''The Court answers, that if the jury believe
from the evidence that there were proyocations
and a transport of passion, (both must concur,)
which rage for the time controlled the defend
ants conduct, it will reduce the crime from muir
der to manslaughter. l think it right to say to
the jury that if they believe the testimony of
William Hoeke, the fact of his striking the pris-
oner with a stone about the time the gun was
wrenched from the hands of the deceased may
properly be considered in weighing the provoca-
ton for he says that he threw the stone to divert
the attention of the prisoner from the deceased;
and that whilst the use Of deadly weapon by
the prisoner is circumstance against him, the
fact of his obtaining possession of it from the
deceased Immediately before it was fred is IA
vorable to him."
The testimony having been concluded upon
agreement, the jury was placed under the care Of
bailif and the court adjourned.