Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1858-11-26


If tho act was committed purposoly1-if
when Che blows we're given tho prisoner ~
tended to kill his victim--the case comes
within one or the other Of these provisions
Of the law, as there is no claim in this case
that il was done in self defense.
The law against manslaughter, SO far as il
has any applicability to this case, provides
that the act must Be done Tin sudden quar-
REL" II Is not necessary under this section
that there should bo any intention to kill.
If parties get in sudden quarrel and en-
gage in an angry scufflo or contest and ono
is killed, this is manslaughtor.
havo spoken cf the intent. We cannot
lay open a mans bosom and see what his
intentions arc; we can only Judge by out
ward manifestations, what arc the designs
and purposes Of tho heart. Look at the pro-
parations-the instruments--manner of the
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. was said--old
grudgc-the wounds infictod--subseque
declarations or admissions, as well as tho
conduct Of the party.
1t is claimed by tho prisoner that all
these Preparations were only TO destroy him
self If this was the purpose ard the death
Of juno resulted from his interference, then
apply the rules already laid down, to the
facts, and say whether it comes within
either clause of tho statute and which. If
he intended to kill himself and involve
June in the Same fate, the fact that he in
tended to kill himself will abate nothing
from his guilt. Did he intend to kill June /?
is the question.
Evidence of character has also boon given,
tending to provo the accused mild, peace
able man and June man Of quarrelsomc
or violent disposition. There are cases
when such evidence is important 1t de-
pends much upon tho circumstances Of .ho
case. If the testimony in the case, of eye
witnesses, establishes conclusively the prop
osition that the accused committed the muir
der complained Of, then neither his good
character, nor tho bad character of June is
OF any account. No mans good character
authorizes him to commit crime, nor does
mans bad character authorize another to
become his murderer. When one man is
killed by another and nobody witnesses it,
then the jury will SEQ at once how import
ant such evidence may be in arriving at the
probabilities Of what took place between
such parties. When the evidence is circum
stantial or doubtful, then it is important. In
cases where the facts are clear, then it is of
less consequence, and cases may be present
ed where it is of no weight whatever, al
though it may be always given in evidence.
Another question has been made upon
the admissions or declarations of the ac-
cused. These are of course competent cvi-
dsnce, but their weight, like all other tcsti-
mony in the case, is entirely with tho jury.
The jury arc to take the whole of dcciar-
alton whether for or against him; but il is
not true that the jury are bound to believe
all parts of it alike. They arc to take this
with all the other testimony in the ease, and
as they take all other evidence, and weigh
it all together and say what is tho truth.
Another feature in tho case is the diving
declarations Of tho deceased. The law re-
CARDS tho consciousness of the speedy ap-
proach of death as lending all the sanction
TO these declarations that an oath would i'm
pose. Such declarations then, arc entitled
to be, weighed as the testimony of Isaac
Juno Of what took place at tho time of the
affray.
1t is claimed that the accused committed
this deed under tho influence of insanity
| may dismiss this branch of the inquiry by
saying that the law presumes every man
sane, and as intending to do what no actu-
ally performs. In order to excuse man
on this ground, he must not be able to dis
tinguish right from wrong-he must show
that he was not able to discern the differ
ence between good and evl-that he did
not know that he was violating tho law or
suhjecting himself to its penalties. The
enermity of the crime would be very un-
safe rule. The insanity must be fact
proved in the case, and it excuses from all
responsibility. If he was insane you can
not convict Of anything.
If the prisoner as is claimed by tho de-
fense, had became desperate, this is no de-
fensc. The fact that he resolved to take
the lifo of June and take the consequences,
is no excuse, but he must tako the conse-
quonces. No real OF fancied injuries can
authorize one man totako the life Of another.
Some arguments havo boon adlucod up
on the character Of testimony detailing the
declarations of June as well as of the prison
er. Upon this question, tho jury will see
that this evidence requires careful consider
alton. The liability of witnos sses to misun-
dcrstand or misconstrus these declarations
and tho want Of memory, all render this
testimony ssreliable than that who relate
n. n