Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-10-13
From Tie New yerk Herald q Tuesdsy
1ihs Graham murder vrial-Charas a
Judge Mlieheii - terALGt "a Asn-
Slaughter.

Judge siilsAsIi : vsrdlsl q kss-
sisakhieE.
THE JrDoKs CnAnGE.--My lnhoEA rsuils-
men, are very much Fclisved b. tie crsum,
stance that have observed the sirici nlisniion
which you have paid 10 the evidenoe b he
case, and even on occasions where sone litils
error o. discrepancy APPEARED u my Osn
notes, ] found that your rccollection ~ the
testimony was correct A discussion has arisen
between the counsel for the defence and the
counsel for the prosecution, on occasions. In 20
spect 10 what the evidence Of certain Witnesses
on certain points was; still they have differed
very little as TO facts, % far ns testified 20 ~
the Witnesses the difference of opinion be-
tween them being as 10 the conclusions which
were properlY 70 be drawn from the lacln,
when they did differ AZ al In respect 10 What
the testimony was that difference has been
removed, and you can now understand What
the facts are, so far as testified %, and a. adj
mitted by both sides. What are the eoncia
sions to be drawn from these facts, a. stated
by the witness, remains 10 be passed upon by
you. This would leave very little Cor me 10
do, except TO state 10 you what the Law is I,
and If j were TO conGne myself, or II felt al
liberty to con6ne myself to the question before
you,.it would hardly be necessary for me even
10 state the law 10 you.
This defense, instead Of having been put
strictly on the ground Of selfdefense, has takeuf
other ground. II is alleged, on one side, that
the act was committed deliberately and mali
ciously, at the moment Of DR.. Graham clinging
around Colonel Loring, and, on the other, tha,
1t was a sort OF unintentional and spasmodie
action. Between these two cases there could
be no difficulty in determining what the law Is.
Won ~ 4
that either party is exactly right in that respect
From the facts before you, you may not con-
slider that there was premeditated intention
to kill You may, perhaps, think that there
was a wilful design to infict some grievous
bodily harm, or to take life, but that twas in
selfdefense, and in that case il might be re-
quisite for you to consider what the law Is in
relation to selfdefense; and to what cases il is
applicable. You might also come TO another
conclusion. You might conclude that il was
not an act of selfdefense, but one of those cases
of nslaughter-inferior to murder against
which the law provides a punishment; and il
is proper that you should know and have stated
to you what these different degrees of offences
are. | shall proceed, therefore, TO state to you
what the law is on this subject. The definition
OF murder is given on our statutes, and does
not differ very materially, if Mt all, from what
the common law definition of it was.
begin by saying that the killing Of q hui
man being, as defined in the statute, so far as
it can be applicable to this case, when it is not
manslaughter, or excusible or justifable homi.
eide, is murder when perpstrated from pre-
meditated design to effect the death Of the per.
son killed. In some discussions that have
arisen as to what was the meaning of the words
"prsmeditated design do not understand
that the two counsel in this case differ mate
rally in that respect. Still it may be that il is
proper TO present the principle Of law to you,
because you may, perhaps, be misled when you
come to the consideration as to what is the
proper meaning of the word. / state, there
fore, to you that it is not necessary that the de-
sign should have been meditated before the
ARRAY commenced that is not necessary 10
constitute even the offence of murder 1t may
have been formed in the midst of the ARRAY,
and still it is premeditated within the meaning
of the statute. Or it may have been formed
when the act which caused the death was about
to be begun, or when the fatal blow or stab
was about to be given, or when any other
deadly act was about to be begun to be perpe-
trated. Take an illustration from this case.
IL you should come to the conclusion that
death was produced by the stab, and that be-
fore the motion began by which the stab was
given, the intention then was TO KILL not in
self defense, that would be sufficiently long
premeditation to constitute the crime Of muir
der according to our law.
You will observe, gentlemen, what is the
meaning Of the term of murder. When there
is any chance Of setting up defence that it is
excusable, or that it has been done in self de-
tense, you must first understand whether il is
IN calf dafopua nhav IaGo.t,1, ,c IA
defense is given in our statutes, but still it ap-
plies to various cases, some Of which would not
be applicable to this case. ] will confine nv.
self, therefore, to the definition of its proper
meaning, so far as il is applicable to this case.
Still from the nature Of definition, neces
sary inquiry is, was the killing justiGable or ex.
cusable, or manslaughter? and If it was either
then it was not murder. So far as it can be
applicable to this case, killing is just6able, or
in self defense, if committed by one in the law
full defence OF his person, when there is rea-
sonable ground TO apprebend design to do
him some great personal injury, and there shall
be imminent danger Of such design being &C
comphshed. II is enough If there be reason
able ground to apprehend design to do some
great personal injury, and reasonable ground
to apprehend that there is imminent danger Of
such design being accomplished, although, in
fact, such design did not exist-if the appear
ances Of things were such as to justify an ap-
prehension on the mind OF a reasonable person
that such design and imminent danger both
existed. It is not enough that the design only
existed il there was not danger, or il that dan.
ger was not imminent, The design and the
imminent danger must both exist--or the rea-
sonable grounds to apprehend both.
1t is the duty OF him who would call to his
aid this defence, to retreat, if he can safely re-
treat--the old law expression was that if driven
to the wall he might then defend himself The
The fgurative application Of the words is also
correct, and he is driven to the wall in legal
sense who cannot retreat without imminent
danger Of some great personal injury. But he
who retreats merely that he may strike more
effective blow, is in no sense acting in self
defence. Chief Justice Bronson says: "When
a man is struck with the naked hand" IA hand
without weapon,) "and has no reason to ap.
prehend design to do him any great bodily
harm, he must not return the blow with dan
gerous weapon. After conflict has com
meneed be Hnst quit il be can do so in safety
before he kills bis adversary and IL his adyer
sary try 10 escape, he must not pursue and give
him fatal blows with deadly weapon" This
ia correct with the qualification before stated