The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-08-05
The Trials OF John Day.

The Trials OF John Day.
Having published full report of the first
trial Of John Day for the murder of his wife,
we deemed it unnecessary to give the testi-
mony again in detail on his second trial. The
following notice Of both trials may be of inter-
est to such of our readers as have paid par
ticular attention to the merits Of the whole
case. 1t has been on our hands some time,
because We could not conveniently spare room
forit:
CASE OF JOHN DAY.
On the 2lst Of July, 1851, the trial of JOHN DAY,
on the charge of having murdered his wife on the
18th Of May in that year, commenced in the Grim
inal court of the District of Columbia. The follow.
ing preliminary questions were put by the court to
each person offered to be sworn juror:
lst. Have you at any time formed or expressed
which would influence your conduct as a juror in
the trial Of this case
I'd. Have you any bias or prejudice in your mind
for or against the prisoner
Sd. Have you any conscientious scruples about
finding man guilty OF q capital offence. if the
evidence required it?
At half past one O'Clock p. IN. the jury was COM
pleted. consisting of the following persons. viz:
Motley L. Adams, Edmund Bradford, Samuel
Wardell, John B. Scrivener, Charles Mann, John
J. Williams, Charles F. Lowrey, Elijah P. Taylor,
and Lewis Wright
The examination Of the witnesses (of whom
there were thirty-six for the United States incud-
ing nineteen rebutting Witnesses, and forty one
for the prisoner) occupied the court and jury till
Goth July, (when the trial was suspended in conse-
guence Of the illness Of one Of the urors and of the
Sunday following On Monday, the 18th July,
the trial was Icsumed; and on Friday, the lst Of
August, the testimony being concluded, the court,
ON the prayer of the counsel for the prisoner gave
the following instructions to- the jury:
If from the whole evidence aforesaid the jury
shall find that the deceased, Catharine Day, was
killed by the prisoner at the time, and in the man
nsr set out in said indictment, yet il they shall
further find that at the time of bis killing her, as
aforesaid, the reason and mental powers ofthe pri
soner were deficient that be had no will, con-
science, or controlling mental power:
Or, If at the time aforesaid, through the over
whelming violence of mental disease, his intellect
ual power was for the time obliterated; then, in
either of such cases, he 10 not in law guilty Of MUIR
Or if from the evidence aforesaid, the jury shall
further find that the prisoner was for long time
before, and at the time of killing his wife, afore-
said, laboring under mental disease, attended with
delusion, and that in q paroxysm or outbreak OF
this disease of the mind, his reason and judgment
were for time overwhelmed and superseded
and while thus overwhelmed and superseded, he
committed the act with which be is now charged,
he ia not in law guilty of murder:
Or, and in other words, If, from the evidence
aforesaid, the jury shall find that the prisoner
mittcd the act, but that at the time Of committing
the act he was under the influence of q diseased
mind, and was really unconscious that be was
committing crime, he 10 not in law guilty Of
murder. ,s' .""
The counsel for the prisoner also prayed the
Court to instruct the jury a. follows:
that i,arv hol IA
prisoner, at any time prior to the killing of bis
wife, made threats that he would kill some one,
without mentioning his wifs's name, they need
not necessarily infer from such threats that the de-
PENDANT harbored malice against his vile when he
killed her.
The Court did not give this instruction, but
said: II is not for the Court TO say what differences
the jury are, TO draw from any evidence they have
heard; but may shy that you are not bound to
draw the inference mentioned In the prayer, or
any other particular inference; but you are au-
thorized to draw any inference that you shall think
the facts proved to your satisfaction warrant you
On the further prayer of the prisoners counsel.
the court then gave the following instruction to
the jury: II from the whole evidence aforesaid the
jury shall find that the deceased was married to
the prisoner on the fourth of June, 1850, and on
the eighteenth Of September, 1850, gave birth to q
full.grown living child, and thereupon and there.
continued, diseased, and he falsely conceived that
in consequence of said birth he had lost character
among his former associates and friends, and was
no longer held in esteem among them; that such
fusion which affected bis intercourse with society
and that such delusiOn increased in intensity until
his mind became diseased thereby, and he there
after 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 causcless rage his power of distinguish
ing whether he was committing a crime or not
e. a.. i
superseded. and in such paroxysm, and while such
power OF distinguishing was destroyed or super
seded, he committed the act with which he stands
charged, then he is not in law guilty Of murder.
The arguments Of counsel to the jury then be-
gan, and were concluded on Monday, the 4th of ~
gust The jury retired little before o'clock p no
and in about an hour afterwards sent note TO the
court, inquiring whether they could find any yer.
directed the jury to be broug ut into court, and
ON their appearance there, instructed them that
they had the power to find verdict of man-
On the following day the DISTRICT ATTORNEY
remarked to the curt, that though it was un.
doubleday true, the court had informed the jury
that they had the power, on an indictment for
murder, to'6nd averdict OF guilty of granddaughter
only, yet, as the mere announcement of the gen.
era principle, without application to the particular
case, might possibly misead the jury, he would
suggest that the court should send for the jury
again and qualify the instruction ion with an sxpnh
S'ASSsASS
proved the homicide, and that the prisoner was
sane when he committed it, the homicide was
murder, and nothing less. II, on the other hand,
the jury believed from the evidence that he in
sane when he committed it, then be wss not guilty
of granddaughter or of any other offence, and ought
to be acquitted. In England it had been decided
that if the jury bring in verdict Of granddaughter
in a case which clearly amounted to murder, the
court would not receive the verdict.-Q RmsseI
on Crines, SIC, 57l.)
The Court declined to qualify or explain its in.
strucSion. At o'clock p. m. the jury came into
court, aud, being asked BY the clerk whether they
had agreed on their verdict, answered by SAMUEL
WAa5ELL, thsir foreman, that they hads and that
the verdict was guilty as indicted, with re-
commentator to the Executive for q commuta-
ton Of punishment The verdict, which was in
writing. was read by the Jutge, who said that she
Executive bad no such power. The DisTRIcT AT
roaNEr asked that the verdict shouit be recorded.
The counsel for the prisoner asked thai the Jury
should be polled. The polling then began. Not.
ley L. Adams, Edmund Bradiordi samuel " ~:
dell, and John D. Scrivener, severally answered
~Guilty." Charles Mann, who was next called,
answered " Not guilty" Whercupon the jury
were ordered to retire to their room, and did so.
Soon after they sent message 70 the court, in.
curing whether they could change their recon-
mendation of a Communication Of punishment to