The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-04-12

MI. ". concluded MS speech at 20 minutes past
IL, and the Court took recess for few minutes.
Mr.. Brady submitted to Mr.. Oud some letters
OF Mr. Key, which were identified by Messrs
Ould and Carlisle as being in the handwriting of
Mr.. Kew.
Mr.. Brady proposed to read letter, dated
March rs, 1858, from Mr.. Key to Mr. Sickles.
Mr.. Oud.-'I object"
Mr.. Brady.-"On what ground? 2"
Mr.. Ould said that the first of the letters purport-
ed to be letter from Mr.. Key to Mr. Sickles, en-.
closing letters from various parties, and replies
all the enclosures being copies in the hand of Mr..
Key. The objection was that these letters were in
no manner connected with the matter at present
being tried. The greater part of the letters were
correspondence between Mr. Key and other parties
than Mr.. Sickles They had no direct connection
with the matter now being tried by the court and
jury.
Mr.. Brady replied that in opening the case, Mr..
Ould had said that he would prove the incentive by
which MIR. Sickles was urged to kill Mr.. Key was
malicious, and when the evidence for the govern
ment was adduced it not shown that the parties
had been even personally acquainted when the col
lision took place. The jury had only been shown
that meeting on the street had taken place. which
had resulted in the death of one by the hands of the
prisoner. In producing this correspondence it was
the object of the defence to show that friendly feel
ing had existed between the prisoner and the de-
ceased-a species of evidence which admissible
in trials for murder.
Mr.. Ould did OF think that these letters sh owed
on their face that friendly relations existed between
the parties. Even if this the case the letters
had been written almost year before the occur
renee, and in point of time could hardly be admit
ted as evidence. Because friendly relations existed
between the parties over year before the occur
renee, it was no reason that these relations had been
continued until short time previous to the death
of the deceased.
[The letters were handed to the Court for exami-
nation.
Mr.. Brady answered that the evidence could be
adduced on the ground of the precedent in Jarbees
case and in the general ruling of this case The
afta +o 1,
the killing of Mr. Key not an assassination; that
the intent was not feloneous. 1t was sought to
prove that friendly relations existed between the
parties, thus taking away the proof of felonous in
tent 1t was not for the prosecution or defense to
judge whether these letters showed friendly feel
ing from Mr.. Key towards Mr.. Sickles, but it was
for the jury to do If the answer of Mr. Sickles
to the letter of Mr.. Key was not produced by the
prosecution, the defense would show, under the
rules of evidence always admissible that that an
swer was friendly, and that there were intimate re-
lations between the parties. 1t was also claimed
that the correspondence was admissible as evidence
OF the position of Mr.. Key towards Mrs. Sickles
and of the hospitable manner in which Mr.. Kew
was received at the house of Mr.. Sickles.
Mr.. Carlisle said that if there ever was case
tried at this bar which demanded that the rules of
evidence should be carefully respected it was this
case. As for the correspondence which it was
sought to introduce, he would like to know what
bearing it could have in determining the character
OF the act for which the prisoner placed at the
matter what was the object of the deed-whether
it was prompted by gold, desire of revenge or any
other passion. He considered the latter as nothino
more than evidence of merely courteous relations
between the parties. 1t tended to shed on that
question ray of light which any reasonable mind
could perceive. 1t was sought, also, to introduce
as evidence the letters enclosed in the letter of the
deceased, which enclosed letters were written by
other parties. Even if it admissible to intro
duce the letter of courtesy, the enclosures must be
rejected, as only what the deceased himself said
IN terms of courtesy could be admitted He was
familiar with any case in which such evidence was
received by the Court. 1t seemed that the defence
would have great difficulty in proving friendly re-
latlons between the parties, when it was necessary
to bring in note of simple courtesy written nearly
twelve months before the death of the deceased.
Because Mr.. Sickles had received Mr.. Kew into his
house it was no indication of more than courteous
relations between the parties In this city it was
not custom, before introducing gentleman under
your root to exact from him guarantee that he
Will not seduce your wife or daughter. Happily
there still cases of virtue in wives and maidens
among us. But the letter in question appeared to
him rather to bear evidence of a recent difficulty
than OF friendly relations between the parties
MIR. Brady said (interposing) that he meant to
show that even up to the time when Sickles saw
Key waving his handkerchief in the park, their
relations were of this friendly character The
prosecution was mistaken it they supposed the de-
Tense proposed to blacken the character of Mr.
Key. The defense designed not to try the general
character of the deceased, but simply his connec-
ton with the charge which the defendant was
low being tried.
Mr.. Carlisle (resuming) said that unfortunately
it was too late now to try Mr.. Key in any human
tribunal Evidence reaching back one year, tend
ing to shed no ray of light upon the subject of the
killing of Mr.. Key, he held was no evidence here
The fact of friendly relations was attempted to be
established by producing an insignificant cour-
teous note OF one year ago.-Was that note
of itself evidence of the relations of the
parties at the time of the assassination p
The court had read these papers and saw that they
related to portion of the opening speech this
morning: Was it proper, legally to prove the fact
OF friendly relation by sending for note and copies
containing facts not connected with the issue? 1t
was curious that to negative assassination we
must go back for one year, to find that one year ago
courteous note passed between these parties.
Mr.. Phillips contended that all evidence as to the
relation OF the parties pertinent to the case.-
The only question which the court could pass upon
was as to the competency of the letters in question
as % evidences it was for the jury to determine their
friendly relations afforded by these letters, thew
were to be admtted-even if they were but as dust
in the balance The issue was not as to the killing
out OF murder. with implied malice. The objection
made by the District Attorney was not as to the
competence of the testimony but as to its effect of
which latter the jury should be the sole iudg es
The Court said that these letters were nadmiss-
the an tn gong to show friendly feelings
missible, but the declarations of Key were not eyi
dence. He did not regard the matter of time as
material, provided the continuity of friendly rela-
tions up to the time of the occurrence was shown
The letters were consequently ruled out
Mr.. Brady desired the Judge to confne this rul-
ing to the first letter, being the one from Key to
Slckles, to which request the Judge acceded.
MIR. Brady desired the Judge to note an excep-
tion.
Mr.. William Badger was the first witness called
for the defence; resided in Philadelphia; was navy
agent; had held the situation for two years: knew
both parties very well; had known Mr. Sickles
SINCE his return from the Court of St. James, so
far as he knew the relations of the parties were of
the most intimate character; knew Mrs. Sickles
very well, indeed was at dinner party given by
Mr. Slckes at his residence, shortly before decease
Sickles was at the table.
Being asked who else was there
Mr.. Carlisle objected to the question being ir-
Mr.. Brady said he wished to show that the init
mate friends of Mr.. Sickes were at the party; that
part OF the family of MIR. Key were there
MT. Carlisle did not see how the relations of the
members of Mr.. Keys family with that of MIR.
Slckles could have bearing on the case. He did
not think that this collateral evidence was admissi-
Bile; and to what purpose were those who had suf-
fered deeply enough in this matter to be brousht
before the public? All he asked the Court was to
conhne the evidence to the direct relations be-
tween the prisoner and the deceased, and not to
suffer the evidence to be stretched so as to bring
In other parties who have nothing to do with the
case.
MIR. Brady said that the Court, in the case of
Jarboe, had given ample warrant for the argument
now made by the defence. No one more sympa-
thlzed with the family of Mr.. Key than himself but
when man is trial for his life, it is the duty of
his friends and counsel to produce all evidence
which will bear favorably in his case, irrespective
OF the feelings of deceased. Every link which
could prove the existence of intimate relations be-
tween the parties of the utmost Importance to
Mr.. Sickles. All that the jury had learned was
that the parties had met in the street. and that Mr.
Key died by the hand of Mr.. Sckles The iury had.
as yet, no evidence OF the previous acquaintance of
the parties, and, in the absence of such evidence
they must find verdict of guilty. 1t was there
fore, the purpose of the defence to prove an nti-
mate relation; and the question asked the witness
had direct bearing on the case
The Court decided that the question was not ad-
missible
MIR; Badger resumed.-The company separated at
ten O'Clock; thinks Key left when he did, last time
his (Badger's) guest; Mr.. and Mrs. Sickles were
there; Key did not come with them
Noquestions were asked by the prosecution
John B. Haskin stated that he resided at New York
and was member of the House of Representatives:
known Sickles for fifteen or twenty wears, Kew
since Buehanans Inauguration, and Mrs. Sickles for
about twelve years; visited Mr.. and Mrs. Sickes
frequently, as did his wife; met Key frequently at
SIckes house; last saw him about two weeks before
his death, when Piccolomni here; thinks he
was alone; saw him at whist party at Marshal
Hoover just after Buchanan Inauguration; Kew and
Slckles were there; all were intimate acquaint-
ances; heard a conversation between Kew and
Sickles, in which the latter told Kew that he had
urged the President to re-appoint him. and that he
thought he would do 50; Kew thanked him, and
1.n0 nf hlo ntfar -, III.