The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1859-05-04

y
woman 90 habiiually to ho,ise for the pu
pose Of adultery, they are living in adulicr
al the time, and II was not necessafy Il
the husband TO wait for The disgus'in
exhib biion of his own dishonor. 10 slay III
gorged and satiated and brutal adulterer.
Mr.. Carlisle replied At some length. II
contended that actual, not presumptive ad
ultery. would alone reduce the act Of KILN
10 mansIaugh,er. II It is not done at III
very instant OF seeing the crime committed
but after waiting ill il is over, the motive
is revenge, and the killing Is murder. Thi
discussion continued until the hour Of nd
journment.
WASHINGTON, April l6.
Mr.. Graham commended that the counse
for the defense had the right 10 extend m,
line Of proof in regard TO the adulterous in.
tercoursc. They had traced the steps O.
the guilty parties from the rendezvous in
the street 10 the house Of their secret meet
ings, aud they should he permit to 60 in
and show what happened there. The coun.
sci for the prosecution were evidently ex.
pcrimenlng with the defense; but there
was an avalanche OF testimony coming. The
prosecution knew il, aud cried out 10 the
+, aurt 10 stay it, hu, he knew The c)urt
wou''i not stay il. Il would sluluy Itself
II il did 80.
Mr. Grahgm spoke til half-nnst one o.
clock. when NJ. did rose 10 reply, which
lie did at great lcrg,h. The argument was
until the adjournment, no further
progress being nude III the case, which will
be resumed on Monday morning.
We are requested on the parl or Mf. Sc
k;es to state that he deeply regrets, Tor
many reasons. hut particularly for The sake
Of his child, who must one day read The re-
cord OF her mothers shame, that the con-
Iession OF Mrs. Sicles was published. The
publication was contrary 10 his wishes, and
i ], had been within his power he would
have suppressed il.
WASHINGTON, April Is.
The Court opened at the u-upi time, n
arge audience being in attendance. Dis
rict Attorney 0lld proceeded 10 close his
srgument against the admissahi,ity or the
svidence 70 prove adultery. lie had been
'nceavoring, he said, when he closed his
nn Saturday, 10 show the facts Of
rrsd ia rv drncs on the prri ~ the defense,
I'D MOI amnun, 70 legal pr.yoca,,an. much
es- 70 Justification, nni haiti = questions
Il provoea'ion. Justification. ana conlina
line were Legal Questions. He aud been in \
errup'ed, noli,rIy. o. course, ~ qisstlvn
rom Mr. Brady, asking Dn villa, were th4 \
pry 10 pass IL the Curt determined w.
aud The cooling iim-. Il wa
he duty Of the jury. he heid. to pa.s upon
he facts ss Connected with III. killing, aud
D apply the law enuneated BY The Court
With reference TO justification, prOvocaiion,
nd cooling ,imr. The Cur, has irs pecu-
lar functions, and 50 hrs the Jury. II there
we're no other qustIpns in the ease, that wss
he fault Of the incidents attaching 10 the
ase. The jury Is 20 pass unon the truth OF
he facts offered. Their sufiiciencv in law
vas a question exclusively for the Court. -
/ the Court drciIed tha, they were su.fi
int III law. then The question Of their
ruth went before the jury; but IL the court /,
ecidcd that they were not sufficient in law
hen, Of course, they did mol 20 before the
lry.
Brady. We utterly refuse to enter inio .
ny discussion Of any question at this time :,
kept what relates 10 The particular point
efore your honor for determination. We T,
firred TO prove habitua adultery; objection :
a. made 70 that as justification. provoca-
on and cooling time. We propose 10 be
card at future stage in askisg the court !
,r instructions, and we mean TO insist that (
he jury are the judges OF Inc law and Of the !
lcis, but that time has not arrived yet. /,
OuId--l certainly misunderstood the ar !,
umcnt Of counsel IL the questions OF justi-
cation, provocation. and cooling lime were J,
OF now before the Court.
Phiilips--If the evidence has tendency :
,wards Justification that is sufficient.
District Attorney yield that II had mol,
uch tendency. for in law the facts amount
neither to Justification nor provocaiion.
b the case cited by The other side Man
ing's case -- tie question Of provocation !
as before the court, aud the court there I
pclarcd what would be and woud not be i
iificient provocalivn. Did not every court !,
cases oi murder necessarily decide upon J.
70 sutficcncy OF evidence 10 constitute le-
Il provocalion in lawi Undoubtedly il did.
ere the facts sought to be put ia evidence
ere admitted bot the question was whe-
Ter they amounted TO provocaion or JUS !,
hcaton. The same doctrine came up in
in Sellrdge's case a. to the eff
ci thar the law ought to give and what \ \
e jury must give to certain questions
fecting honor and dishonor, and there the y
,urt decided the question: counsel referred !,
second volume Of Archibod's Grimm al
ractice. OuId, resumiDg, replied 20 the
opposition u Phillips that the evidence &
as competent for rcbutting malice. That y
! thought was begging tie question: =
y-- ~...k .l.~..t.~ !. In