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


day. the 9Th of July. when tn. following jurors
were empaneled, viz: John Ashford, Alexander
Bradley, Jacob Smull. William A. Schaefer, Ben
jamin F: Moxley. Henry Martin. David Major
Toson, Thomas Adams, and James shackelford
The case was opened to the jury BY the DIsTRIcr
ATToRsEY on the part Of the United States, and
by Mr.: MORGAN for the prisoner. The exarnina.
ton of the witnesses for the prosecution then con-
menced. and was continued through the residue Of
that day, and through Friday the 9th. and part
OF Saturday the 10th Of July. About noon of the
last-named day the examination of the witnesses
for the prisoner commenced, and continued during
the residue OF the day. On Monday, 18th July,
II was resumed; was continued on Tuesday, 18th
July. and Wednesday, l4th July. On Thursday.
the jury, John Ashford, the case was suspended
On the 18th and 10th Of July rebutting witnesses
were examined on the part of the United States;
and on the 10th additional testimony on the part
Of the prisoner was, by consent, admitted. Some
Of his witnesses being absent their evidence the
former trial was by consent. read to the jury from
the report in the Washington r. public. The mum
Der Of witnesses were eighteen in chief and fifteen
rebutting on the part Of the United States, and
forty on behalf of the prisoner.
The evidence on this trial did not materially diff
fer from that given on the former trial, with few
exceptions to the general coincidence Mrs. Ann
Wood. who had been prominent witness for the
defence on the first trial. was not introduced the
second; nor was any testimony offered, on either
side, on the second trial, in regard to principal
second trial two new witnesses were examined, one
for the United States and the other for the prisoner
each Of whom was deemed important by the Of.
fsIatS ;gehpp aa5t} ,o. w;t0... On tn. tho
United States, gave the following testimony: He
had known the prisoner ever since The prisoner was
a small boy; the prisoner had been an apprentice
to the witnesses father. In August or September,
1850, prisoner came to work for the witness who
was then erecting building for Mr.. Lehman. on
the border OF the canal, the prisoner having before
been at work on the Patent Office. One morning
the prisoner came later than usual to his work
and as the cause Of hs delay stated to the witness
that he had been up all night; that his wife had
been confined, was about to be confined. The
witness was not sure which expression was used
The prisoner said he had great mind to leave his
wife, and swore that it was not his child The
witness questioned him closely as to how he knew
1t was not his child. The prisoner said he had
made her own up to it. She acknowledged the
child was not his. He pinned her pretty close, and
made her acknowledge. She said Il was Sheckels's
| child. He threatened to leave his wife. The wit
ness said If he did 80, the best way was to keep
quiet-to say nothing about it; to which the pri
soner assented, and said he would 60 away. The
witness being intimate with the prisoner, took the
liberty OF asking him some questions-of cross
questioning him. The prisoner acknowledged in
confidence that he had had connexion with his wife
once before marriage, but there was not time
enough for the child to be bis The prisoner seemed
drowsy; but there was nothing else in his appear
| ance or manner which attracted the witness's
stCo Auc prisoner was geneTally uVely.
Mrs. Julia Morgan, witness for the defence,
testified a. follows: She 10 the prisoners aunt
When he was about ten years Of age. in Alexan-
dria. he received an injury on the head, BY blow
ness was down stairs, the prisoner was coming
down stairs, and the block of wood was thrown
from above. The witness did not see it thrown.
The prisoners mother was up stairs 1t struck
the top Of his head. He was insensible for some
time. There was no other effect from the wound
than that the prisoner was q little deaf afterward
No physician was called in. The prisoners mo.
Their and the witness themselves dressed the wound
The prisoner, ut another time, was struck by boy
in the street. Since the blow from the piece Of
wood the prisoner has frequently not heard we'll.
Cross.ezaninsd-The witness does not know
which was first in point of time, the blow 90 the
stairs or the blow in the street. Does not think
that there was an interval of two years between
them. The prisoner is now in the oath year of his
age. The witness was in court one day on the
former trial OF this cause Supposes that the open
ing Of the wound from the blow first spoken Of
an inch and a-half long. Can't recollect that she
saw the bone. The piece of wood with which the
blow was inflicted was square piece Of mahogany,
about as large as a book now before the witness.
1t might have been thic ker. 1.-THE book was a
volume of Kilty's Laws Of Maryland, in quarto. ]
The prisoners mother WAS living in the house. No
dren. Witness does not know whether they then
in the house. The wood came from the steps Of the
first story In answer to questions from jurors, the
witness stated that she did not know whether the
wound was in healing; nor whether it produced
| any fever; nor whether any medicine was given to
him; that he was insensible for some time; that
they kept it to themselves; and that the witness
of wood. In her further cross examination, the
witness stated that the injury which the prisoner
received from the boy in the street was bad cut
Cant say how long It was kept tied up. ~, No ply.
stefan saw him, to her recollection Thinks the
prisoner staid in day on account of it, The pri-
soner's family do not hear we'll. The witness cam
not say whether the deafness proceeded from cold,
or what. On her re. examination in chief the wit.
ness stated that her attention first called on
yesterday to the wounds she has spoken Of On
being asked If the wound on the head had fire.
quently broken out since, the witness answered
that there had been something Of the kind; that
there had been breaking out on the top Of the
head where the wound wac; that che could not re-
collect how long afterward, but about week
two after he received the wound.
The evidence being closed, the court, on the ap-
pication Of the prisoners counsel. gave the same
instr uctions the law as at the former trial. and
in addition thereto, the following:
"And II, from the whole evidence aforesaid, the
jury shall find that from any predisposing cause
the prisoners mind was impaired, and there was
prolonged change of his character consequent on
the birth of the child on the 18th September, (if
gloomy, and unsocable, and without interest in
things which he was formerly interested in, and,
under the influence of said causes, he became men.
tally incapable Of governing himselfin reference to
act was, by Of said causes unconscious that
he was committing crime as to her, he is not in
law guilty of murder"
The following instructions were granted on the
prayer Of the counsel for the United States:
!. That If the jury believe, from the evidence,
that the deceased was X lied by the prisoner, by
means Of leaden bullet discharged from pistol,
such killing implies malice in law, and is murder.
2. That the burden of rebutting the presump
ton Of malice, by showing circumstances of allie
Walton, excuse, or justification, rests the pri
soneri and it 10 incumbent on him to make out
such circumstances TO the satisfaction of the jury,
unless they arise out of the evidence produced
against him.
8. That every person is presumed to be Of sound
mind until the contrary is proved; and the burden
of rebutting this presumption rests on the pri
s>uer.
ON Saturday, 18th July, tho case was argued to
the iury b. Mr.. WOODWARD for the United States,
and BY Messrs. MORGAN and BRADLEY for tho pri
soner.
On Monday, July 10, the case was further ar
gucd to the Jury by Mr.. BaADthr for the pritoa'
err; and on Tuesday, July 20, by the pisrnlcT AT.
ToRNEY for the United States.
The arguments to the jury having been closed,
the prisoners counsel, in reference to some posi-
tions taken by the DIsrRIcr ATTORNEY in argu-