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

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. It has been on our hands some time,
because We could not conveniently spare room
for it:
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 put by the court to
each person offered to be sworn as juror:
LIST. Have you at any time formed expressed
an opinion, or even entertained an impression,
which would influence your conduct as juror in
the trial Of this case?
I'd. Have you any bias or prejudice in your mind
for or against the prisoner?
3D. Have you any conscientious scruples about
finding man guilty Of o capital offence. if the
evidence required 1t?
At halfpast 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. Scrvener, Charles Mann, John
A. Ruff. Eugene Laportc. Charles Turner, Thomas
J. Williams, Charles F. Lowrey, Elijah p Taylor,
ana Lewis "nght.
The examination of the witnesses (of whom
there were thirty six for the United States includ
ing nineteen rebutting witnesses, and forty one
for the prisoner) occupied the court and jury till
the LIST Of August, with the exception of Saturday,
y Of
Sunday following. On Monday, the 18th July,
the trial was resumed; and on Friday, the lat Of
August, the testimony being concluded, the court,
the prayer Of the counsel for the prisoner, gave
ha fsnli ouyin mat tn ha iurv
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 II they shall
further find that at the time of his killing her,
aforesaid, the reason and mental powers oftho pri
soner were so deficient that be had no will no con-
science. or controlling mental power:
Or, if at the time aforesaid, through the over
ual power was for the time obliterated; then, in
either of such cases, he is not in law guilty Of MUIR
der:
before, and at the time of killing his wife, afore
said, laborng under mental disease, attended with
delusion, and that in 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 he il now charged,
he Is not in law guilty of murder:
Or, and in other words, If, from the evidence
mitted 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 is not in law guilty OF
murder. "...
The counsel for the prisoner also prayed the
Court to instruct the jury a. follows: 7":
II the jury believe. from the evidence, that the
prisoner, ct any time prior to the killing Of bis
wife, made threats that he would kill some one,
without mentioning bis wife's name, they need
not necessarily infer from such threats that the de-
fendant harbored malice against his wife when he
killed her.
The Court did not give this instruction, but
said 1t il not for the Court to say what differences
the jury are TO draw from any evidence they have
heard; but may say that you are not bound to
draw the inference mentioned in the prayer, or
thorized to draw any inference that you shall think
the facts proved to your satisfaction warrant you
in drawing.
On the further prayer Of the prisoners counsel :,
the court then gave the following instruction to
the Jury: IF 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
ull.grown living child, and thereupon and there.
after the mind Of the prisoner was, became, and
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
conception was an unwarranted and onsound de-
fusion which affected his intercourse with society,
aud that such delusion increased in intensity until
his mind became diseased thereby, and he there
after was subject to great. causeess, and violent
psroxysms 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 crime or not
was, by such paroxysm, for the time destroyed or
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 Au-
gust. The jury retired little before O'Clock M
and in about an hour afterwards sent q note to the
court, inquiring whether they could find any YER
dict other than guilty or not guilty. The court
directed the jury to be brought into court, and.
on their appearance there, instructed them that
they had the power to find verdict Of man
slaughter.
On the following day the DISTRICT ATTORNEY
remarked to the curt, that though it was un.
doubleday true as the court had informed the jury
that they had the power, on an indictment for
murder, to find o verdict Of guilty Of manslaughter
only, yet, as the mere announcement of the gen.
eral principle, without application to the particular
case, might possibly mislead the jury, he would
suggest that the court should send for the jury
again and qualify the instruction with an expla-
nation. II the jury believed the evidence which
proved the homicide, and that the prisoner 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 he was not guilty
of manslaughter 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 yerdict.-Q Russell
on Crimes, 646, 67l.)
The Court declined to qualify or explain its in
struction. 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
WARDRLL, thsir foreman, that they had, and that
the verdict was guilty as indicted, with re-
commentator to the Executive for commute
ton of punishment. The verdict, which was in
writing, read by the Jul ge, who said that the
Executive bad no such power. Inc DISTRICT AT
roaNEY asked that the verdict shouiS be recorded.
The counsel for the prisoner asked tina: the Jury
should be polled. The polling then began. Not
Icy L. Adams, Edmund BradiorLj samuel N[:
dell, and John d. Scrivener, severally answered
equity" Charles Mann, who next called,
answered Mot guilty" Whereupon the jury
were ordered to retire to their room, and did So
Soon after they sent q messageto the court, in.
curing whether they could change their recon-.
mendation Of a communication of punishment to
recommendation to the clemency of the Executive
The court declined answering the question.
At six O'clock, p. M, on Saturday, 9th of Au-
gust, the jury brought into court a verdict Of
"Guilty," and were discharged. motion for a
new trial was made, and the court adjourned till