The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-07-04

knife about him. used it in sabbing the deceased he
only who had and used the knife would be guilty Of the
homicide There may be many in which two or
men, acting in concert would make the act of one
done in prosecution of the purpose the act Of
both or all This case is not within that principle
The eighth instruction prayed for by the United States
is as follows
g. If from the evidence, the jury shall find that one of
the prisoners inflicted the sabs whereof the deceased
Thomas Berry, died. and that the other was aiding,
abetng and assisting thereat it is mmateral which
gave the blows, and both responsible but if the
jury shall further find that John Devl one Of the pris-
oners the stabs and at the time OF giving the same
was insane still James Deyn if he was present aiding
and assisting, is responsible.
This instruction is granted provided the jury believe
from the evidence, that the prisoner who did inict
the sabs was aiding and assisting the other Me
of the homcdenot that he there and engaged
ia the ARRAY but participated in the killing and knew
the other about commit it, If John is protected
by insanity, james might still be guilty.
The ninth instruction prayed for by the United States
is in these words:
o. To relieve the prisoner, John Devlin from the
sequences of his acts in connexon with the homicide of
Thomas b. Berry, the ground of insanity the evidence
must establish to the minds OF the jury beyond all rea
sonabe doubt that he WAS insane ut the time of the
commission thereof and that the insanity such as
to deprive the prisoner of the reason as applied to
the acts in question: and the knowledge that he was
doing wrong in committing them. 4
This prayer is based the idea that the Jury must be
satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt of the insanity of
the party for whom that defence Is up precisely az
the United States are bound to prove the guilt of de-
fendant to warrant conviction. well aware and
it has appeared in this argument that il has been held
by court of high rank and reputation that there must
be prepondence of evidence In favor Of the defence Of
insanity to the presumption of law that every
killing murder and that the court has said that
if there is equilibrium Including suppose the pre-
sumption mentioned OF evidence the presumption of the
dcfcndants innocence makes the preponderance in his
favor Whether man is insane or not is matter of
fact what degree of insanity will relieve him from
sponsiby is matter of law the jury finding the fact
of the degree too under the instruction of the court Muir
der can be con- nitted only by man. Everybody
presumed to be who is charged with crime, but
when evidence is adduced that prisoner is insane and
conflicting testimony makes question for the jury they
to decide it like every other matter of fact and if
they should say conclude that there is uncertainty
that they cannot determine whether the defendant is
not insane Us to protect him. how they render
verdict that perpetrated the crime ?-and
other Nor is this plain view of the question
supported by authority. Here English authorities
cited The humane and will add just doctrine that
reasonable doubt should avail prisoner belongs to
defence of insanity much, in my opinion to any
other matter of fact. @
defendant is not to be excused from responsibility if
he has capacity and sufficient to enable him to
distinguish between right and wrong, to the partcu-
lar act he is donga knowledge and consciousness that
the act he doing is wrong and criminal and will sub
ec him to punishment. In order to be responsible, he
must have sufficient power of memory to recoect the
aton in which he stands to others and in which others
stand to him that the act he is doing contrary to the
plain dictates of justice and right injurious others and
violation of the dictates of duty Although he may be
laborng under partial insanity if he still understands
the nature and character of his act and its consequences
if he has knowledge that it is wrong and criminal and
mental power sufficient to apply that knowledge to his
and to know that If he does the act he will do
wrong and receive punishment such partial insanity is not
sufficient to exempt him from responsibility for criminal
acts. q Metcalf Reports, 5Ol3D Lord Dcnman Chief
Justice of the Queens Bench laid it down that if the
prisoner was aboring under ''seme controlling disease
which in truth the acting power within him which
he could not resist then he will not be responsible and
in another part of his opinion said, 'the question is
whether he is laborng under that species of insanity
which satisfies you that he quite of the
tue character and consequences Of the act he
hitting, or other words, whether he under the in
huence Of diseased mind and wns realty UNCONSCIOUS
at the time he was committing the act that it was
crime. =
The tenth instruction prayed for by the United States
is in these words -
TO- II the jury believe from the whole evidence that
sudden quarrel between the deceased and the prs
oncs and that blows passed between them without any
intention to kill injure each other materially and
that in the of the scufe after the parties became
heated by the contest James Devlin killed the deceased
with deadly weapon, and that John Devn present
aiding and abettng in such killing prs and that
the deceased unarmed then the said defendants
guilty of granddaughter.
In reference to this the Court remarked that was
the with the eighth and must receive the
swer
The first instruction prayed for by the defence is as
follows ae f F' WA
l. If from the whole evidence aforesaid the jury be-
eve that Of the prisoners at the bar did, with malice
aforethought nct upon the person of the said Thos b.
Berry, in his lifetime the wounds whereof he afterwards
died but arc in reasonable doubt to which of the
prisoners inflicted the said wounds their verdict
must be 'Not guilty to both, unless from the
evidence aforesaid they further believe that at the time
the said wounds were inflicted the prisoners acted
Inv with intep fn
said Thomas b. Berry, to do him great bodily harm
This granted by the Court upon the principle that
where it is certain that of two individuals COM
the one or the other guilty agent neither Of them
can be convicted. That has also been the ruling in this
Court previously.
The second instruction prayed for by the defence was
subsequently withdrawn. The third and fourth were
granted, as follows
g. If the jury believe from the evidence that James
Deylin (onc of the dcfenants) committed the homicide
charged in the Indictment and that ut the time thereof
he had reasonable ground to believe his life in dan
ger that the deceased would do him gricvous and
bodily HARM then they ought TO acquit said defend
ant although in fact the said deceased did not intend to
take life or ntlict severe bodily harm.
A. IT, from the evidence aforesaid the jury believe
that for several years prior to and at the time Of the
death of the said Berry, he had been prohibited by the
lawful owner, poescssor and occupants Of the premises
wherein he met his death from entering the same and
that he had repeatedly entered the with threats of
pants and did so enter on the said day of his death
that the said and occupant WINS widow and the
prisoners her two sons, and that she had protector
hers that. beinr ordered by the