The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1859-04-14
WASHINGTON, Wednesday, Apri! i3

WASHINGTON, wednesday, April 10.
The interest in the sckIes trial seems to be as in
tense aud deep to-day as II on the day the ira.
gedy took place. Ii is the whole topic of conver.
sstion in public aud private, among men, women
and children The thrilling scene 10 Court yes
terday, when the wounds of the prisoner we're
opened afresh by the touching evidence Of Hon. Il.
j. Walker, appealed in the most pathetic and elo-
quent manner to the hearts of all present. Every
one In the room was touched by IL. The confes-
sion OF the faithless Wife and the description given
of the sgonies Mr.. Sickles suffered when the ap-
palliDg truth forced itself on his mind, have Won
for him the sympathtes of the whole community,
aud were the case now submitted to the jury.
the defence need have no fear of the result.
This morning, the moment the Court room doors
were opened, the crowd poured in, and filled the
space set apart for the spectators.
Judge Crawford took his seat at 20 minutes TO 10
O'Clock.
Mr.. Sicktes was shortly after conducted to his
seat. He appeared TO have recovered his wonted
composuro of thought though his countenance bore
marks of bis recent suffering. Messrs. Brady aud
Stanton were seated near the dock, and conferred
with him occasionally.
The jury being ali present
Mr. Carlisle, for the prosecution, proceeded to
argue against the admissibility of Mrs So comics
| sion. He presumed the Judge had already COM
suited Authorities, and made up his mind on he
point-but still the cousel would not have dis
charged their duty. il they did not oppose the offer
of that paper. IL was of the first importance, and
determined whether justice had become contemps
tib,e or not. He oonteuded that his Honor, If be
admitted the evidence, should expressly limit the
use TO which is was to be applied. 1t struck him
there was not entire concord in the minds of
the con nsei for the defence TO the purpose for
which tho evidence offered, and for which it
was admissible. The counsel who offered ii
proposed il fDroue purpose, and another counsel
offered it for another. IL first offered as bear-
ing the status of the prisoner 8 m ind and not
proving the facts it contained. Mr.. Graham
showed that he meant to maintain that the fact
referred to was the fact which ought legally to be
appealed to- for ascertainng the condition of the
prisoners mind at the time anterior to the hOmi-
eide, and not content with that, he claimed it
as a fact to show the irresistible impulse under
which the prisoner inbored when the act WAS
consummated. Mr.. Graham thought this fact
admissible as tepding to show something like in.
sanity in the prisoners mind.
Mr.. Carlisle pursued this course of argument at
considerable len 9Th. concluding as follows: "As
to all the grounds distinctly TAKEN and argu-
ments incidentally made, they must ell come to
the test of the law, aBd resolve themselves into
the single question of insanity / have not heard
any Of the counsel claim that the prisoner WAS in
sane, aud submit before the evidence can be re-
ceived, it must be proposed on this ground and
there the prosecution ID prepared to meet it, The
question is, can adultery be given as evidence in
mitigation of the crime of murder TO the grade OF
manslaugbter? The L. s. Court of Appeals has
decided to the contrary. This was in the case of
q slave-but that makes no difereuce-all are, or
ought TO be, slaves TO the law" Mr.. C. then
lyzed the confession, containing the formal and
solemn Tenuncation of marital rights offered
as evidence.
The prosecution object to it, drst, because it was
the work of the prisoners wife evidently in his
presence, at his instance, or under his control. 1t
N ndsnUfable uCiut that I'M shaT II and wife
incompetent witnesses for against each other in
any case, civil or criminal. lie referred to a
in this court of double indictment where the
Judge refused to allow the wife of person not on
trial to testify in favor Of the person being tried,
| because her testimony might have effect in the
case of her husband This is not an cffer to bring
the wife into court as witness against her hus-
band, but TO bring in inferior sort of testimony.
Second, where the witness is iuaGmssible, all de.
clarations of that witness also inadmissible,
dying declarations excepted; but was the fact it
self competent to be received, it might be admissi.
| bic il offered TO make up evidence or Insanity
Mr.. Graham cited from authorities to show
| where the wifs's declarations were admitted IS
| evidence.
Mr. Carlisle wished opportunity of examining
the cases cited. He submitted that these could
| bear 10 analogy to the present. A wifes decIara-
ration in law the declaration OF her husband
| aud by analogy if it could be shown hat the pri-
/ soner's declaration was admissible, it could be
| shown that the wife's WAS. He referred to MIR.
Graham q declaration IN his previous speech, sup
| ported by holy writ, that husband and wife were
| one flesh Roscoe evidence contained decisions
Of the aimissibiiity of the wite's evidence in Eng
iish courts. but mono of these cases covered the
points here involved Mr. c. proceeded to take UP
the point of surrounding crcumetances-the res
geStf. About O'clock the day preceding the
killing, Mohun te8tihas TO seeing Sickles coming
from the capitol Bridget Duffy says that be.
tween and O'Clock he retired from dinner with.
out eating, and asked that food be to him.
She testiies that shortly after Mr.. and Mrs Sick
| los war tCopther n the he'd thafa oh
| o'clock after this prolonged interview-the sub
ject of this extraordinary paper was produced
| this formal instrument concluding with an at
testing clause prepared, and the court is asked TO
SAY that that paper is not the statement given TO
the prisoner at tho capitol, and which brought him
home in despair, but that this paper, which is
written without parallel, shall be given to
the jury evidence. Unless the court can adont
the theory of the defence that under the circuin-
stances, there was no such thing as cooling time,
IL must presume that ghteen hours of deep grief
did allow of cooling time.
| Mr.. Carlisle said the court was 10 say whether
the declaration of the wife was 80 connected with
the transaction which occurred eighteen hours
| AFTER as reducing that act from murder to man.
slaughter. The matter in inquiry Was the fact OF
insanity, and the United States conteuded that this
evidence did not bear on that question in auy re-.
spect. There were two classes of men, one he
trusted was numerous, but the other was PERTAINS
larger oae class was that body of lowly, humble
men, who with fear and trembling followed after
| the footsteps OF their assembled Lord 1t was thew
| who were competent to speak in the language of
| scripture and say, BLESSED is the mau whom the
| Lord chastenetb." That was one class There
was yet another class, safe-auite safe from such
| a blow as that: the confirmed adulterer-the omen
| shameless pr0figate-the man nurtured in bro
| thels. That was the mau safe from insanity he,
| cause his plaything had proved false in his hand
lie thought in this case counsel might desire to 90
into such inquiries as these The speaker contend.
ed it would lead to other inquiries which il was
difficult to say where they would end Such pre-.
sunptions, as any other Presumptions, were liable
/ to be met and rebutted by another state of facts
The Court said it was proposed TO offer the state.
| ment of a wife to her husband, In his favor and
that he could not see any distinction between ad
| hitting her evidence, which would exonerate him.
because the result would be his acguittaI Thu
Court very clearly of the opinion that the
staement is not evidence, and rejected the pro-
position.
Mr.. Brady made exception TO this ruling
OctaUlq Rldgely was then caied-rbe introdue-
tion OF that young lady upon the stand produced
much excitement in the DOM, it being understood
that she was to testify to the particulars of The
drawing up of the confsssioe of Mrs s. She wore a
double veil of bus and black, but at the reonest
of counsel, uncovered her face Her mother ac. |
companied her, and sat by the witness stand while
Mics r. was giving her testimony. The personal |
attractions OF witness were of character to bring
all eyes upon her, but with the exception of a |
burst of tears, she gave her evidence with remark.
able self possession. She testified rs follows:
Resides in Washington, corner of i5.h and New
York Avenue. with her mother and step father
HaVe known Mr.. and Mrs. Siokles since January
, naer witness introduction to Mrs. g., visited
there frequently. Was there every Tuesday. and
frequently during the week to dinner. Was there
tue saturday preceding the death of Kew. Sic.
kieH came to the dinner table, but did not eat. He
e ca nome about b55 O'Clock Had noticed a
",laros. hey was with Mrs. S. that night, but
not go much as was Mr.. Wykotf Witness not;css
s. sl,ght change in sSkles Thursday night, bnt
distracted look, particularly when he retnrnad ~
dinner from the House Of Representatives TTIars
witness burst into tears and being led from ths
stsnd, glass of water vas brought her--aftar a
moment she resumed. He didn't eat much dinner:
went up stairs and went 10 the library: aftsrward
went TO their room. Mrs. g. was writinp ana 81