The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1859-04-18


ihs court had 30 decided. Nov the.dpeF Ia sueh n
dccIaou was aoushttp be closed 70 such Testimony
Ia Smiths cssa,l WhartoD's eonmsntaries.) where
ie slew eaptsfa Carson, the frat husband Of his
wife, who hyf left hor for 0yesrs, tue conrt had
sustained hts view of Tho law
The ennrt Corrected Mr.. Urehams recollection II
that case, sayieg that Carson hadbeey absent from
his wife at r two years, aud 90 returning,
10 hia houRe whore be found Smith living With bis
wife, and In su alteration with Smith, sas killed
by him
| Mr. Graham feontlnuluf) referred 20 other cases
where all evidence tsndpa 20 prove the adultery
had gone TO the Jury. This tnstmouy, hs core
tepded, tended to prove that Key had drawn on
sicke's wife from him. If IL WAS the defence that
Sicktes was acting nader delusion, they could
provo tho Ansou from the cause. III entitled TO
Bhow tho origin Of the deln5iop, aud all tho cir~
cumstauras accompanying II, why IL IL Illegal 30
sbow .he ptecBe state o, Sickles mind from tho
fact producing that state Of mind. Iis had called
the courts attention to various cases wherein the
husband acquired certain rights and loses certain
| rights. lie hold that the knowledge Of mrs.
| sickIes adultery was the mpel,iug power Indu,
! cling the killing. Iie would mako paiu 10 Mr..
| Carlisle what the res gesfse really Is.
He referred TO tne Georgia Reports, page GIT,
! wherein IL was held that il not right 70 the
declaration TO "A certain tfr;e asid II there ars ps
| tervenipg circumstances rendefiuR the fact part
of u chain of facts. !. was admissible testimony.-
| When the husband first heard OF it, then was the
time that 1. carried with IL all the eli ct it would
l
! act Here Mr & drew strong picture OF the
| frenzy OF Sickes the night be heard OF the
proof of the act, showing as be alleged os insan-
ity. Tho waving Of the handkerchief placed the
deceased in Ragrcnic deiictu His other efforts to
| get up another sGulter0us meeting with Sick'ea'
vile also placed him, in law, in tdgro1ste detictH
| Why was the testimony of the waviog the hand
kerchie admitted, but as one of the iacts to prove
| the adultery! If there was doubt as 10 what the
waving of the baukercbief meant, the defence was
entitled to prove what it meant. Ii the defence
/ can establish the state OF the prisoners mind
| otherwise, why not by showing tho cause OF that
| state of mind Mr.. C. here referred 10 the case
of King VS.. Whitehead in the 1st Of Darlington
aHd Payne, page GT, whese state Of mind was
| proved entirely by action foreign to the prison
er, but AZ IL bore upon his motive, he was allowed
thus to show IL. In the case OF Cruchey, 9th Car
riugton and Payne page l53 the prisoner was per-
| mitted to show chat he was compelled 20 break the
law by the violence of a mob.
| The defence here asked leave TO shoH that Sic
| kles was an instrument In the hands Of his iD+
stinct, not of mob.
! He next referred TO the case of Powell and Hara
per, tsame book, page 1907 where the defence were
permitted TO justify, by showing the statements oil
the alleged thief when the defendents received the
stolen goods from MIN. Mr.. q. continuing, read
from other authorities (csges wherein the declara-
tions of others had baen received as Justification
fer the state of the mind Of the accused. lie held
that Jarboe had been acquitted on the ground OF
temporary insanity The report OF the case and
the in Sach the court left it to the jury,
showed that it was designed by the court to be de.
cded on the point OF insanity, and was so decided
by the Jury.
It had been asked, in order to prfiudice the case
before the jury, what interest had SCkles in his
| wife wGea ne met Mr. Key, Knowing that she had
| forfeited her marriage VOW? Even though he hal
| made up his mind 70 surrender her to ser fate
what must have been the state Of his mind towards
her destroyer?
Mr.. Carlisle corrected declaration of Hr. Ora,
ham. He had coateuded that the prisoner knew
| On meeting Key, that Key could not again have
, aduiterous intercourse with his wife.
| In conclusion. NJ. Graham would say that if the
position Of the United States in this Gaze to be
| adhered to, this case ought to hav8 stopped with
the coroner's jary The inquest found VITO bad
killed AT. Key, and ne prosecution had eUdeavoTed
| Inns far most strenuou3iy to co.tle the defence
TO that single point, and steadfastiy refused TO ad
nit any extenson Of evidence. showing the cause
# that killing. He held that the case shouic have
| ended with tie ccTouers jury. He submitted tia,
his trial TO develop Ehe state OF Sick ee mind,
and that every itct going to shoR il proper TO
20 before the jury It was not for the prosecution
on finding that the de could provo the adu tea
ry, otsct TO the testimony off ets goUg to prove
II. The prosecution desired the court 20 pGta stop
to the Offering Of testimony such as had been ad.
Taitted up to that point in the trial cf the case.
| Mr Ould replied, stating that tho gccund cf this
application OF the defence are four ia num5or -
first that the facts Tecited amount TO jGsc.iica.
tlon; teocnd. ii net. then to legal proV0cation
third, it EOt to either, then they GOOD prooi
of insanity; fourth, II 20 oiu5sniiy then 20 prove
the state CT the prisoner, excitement.
| The questions o. justice alton aaG pr0vocatioi.
| we're legal questions It VIZ; said thas the jadg-
inents OF OLD times we're on special gerdicts eD6
thar none such saare rendered here the ru I'm
| those cases wcuia nOS noid good here As offer d
the proposition fmpliC2 the truth Ct tbs facts Ctr
rd in eVideoce. 1he court were 20 take THAI ior
legal ef ct into COnsideratiol In sEat case. il was
The duty OF the CONT TO deoide as the Eng;ish
able a. that duty might BE- The ian'suass Of the
| aw was that killing by the husband, on fioiipe
the parties IN the aci OF adultery, Tas inansaugh'
The defence were wrong in insisting that the
prosecution claimed that the huskands bshelding
the parties IN adultery was necessary to mitigate
the killing 10 mansleughter On the contrary the
finding the parties thus engaged was the legal
oeanng Of the point rs conienced for by The PROS.
e1Ution If the husband pursue the parry and sic Y
tin, from revenge, the cf 3pce w8s murder. There
nj. ht be cases wherein ii the killing sight
| che oifrnce would be nutter Thus, ii az dis
| taBCa and seeing he c1muission OF the act with
telescope, aad h shond proceed to kill the adul-
erer he would oe exc uGed fro1n the benefit of the
rule Each case was TO be Judged by itself, and If
showing tiat the killer dnds e. parties in the act
ne eau claiai tie benefit Of the excuse, not tther
| wise.
lie desired the defence to explain how far what
| they termed marital rights went Whether ig was
.Justfication for Killing one cay. two days. or a
year sfuer the fact OF tie adultery. 1T totaii.
inInaterlal what the state Of the prisoners mind
Vas, Il the tine had e!apsei which the Law says
| is efficient cooling time. If, the deieL ce
.iainls This doctrine extepds not only to aaul
terry, bat TO lust where will 1t end II not Cniy on
proof but on uniustltieble suspicion ene nlssy kill
| wnnt wou'd De the stats OF society The United
rtatos had nos, ani woUd not defend adultery. The
question was not that III the de:ene< OF adultery
6rE OF lhs rigas to kill uEder the alleged ciIcum
Nr (5uld here reviewed ths scriptuSal part of the
| srprnent OF the oe.epca and ro8d from the Slh
| CHAPTER or JOHN the story OF the wom taken IL
| adultery, whose condemnation under the MosaIt
| law was claimed by the moo. to whom He st,d
Let him who ss without sin cast the first stone
ie coz trasted he doctrine oi j. sus on the suli-c
| With thai Of the Mosaic Law as claimed by the de
eoce. in eloquent teraas, amid profound silence il
| the courtroom
Il was the genius and spirit of Christianity, as il
w-rc stocpin9 down OH the very heaqeDs. snC
teaching the GoctIine ef chsrity-kin ness. peace
and good will. lie had heard it read, aud il va.
law that when party is + und in the very act ana
TACT OF adultery, that that very act fact theI
and there was the very greatest provecaton tha
cqud be produced. Ia the very Gases quoted on ths
OH II side, the parties were found guilty Of maa
| The solitary question TO be determined by ths
court whether the etate of facts proposed to b.
closed by the d9fence was legal prosoc4tion tend
ing justification For some cfepces the law uic
| not recognize any PROPAGATION. Where malice ex
press malice existed there could DO legal provo
cato He would Do Insult the court by quoting tbs
law on 50 rigia a fact. Ii there express ma
lice IN this ase it inmetesfAi whether therS
WAS proyocation for it could not ie ar8tted wnert
that state of facss existed. 1t bad been charged
that the rule Of law sprihgiue frosn Mannings
case !nsscifut rule in suffering m to go al
large oa sueh puni- hEieht ell Would sasisfy the
law, ald AT tho same time would he light upon tn,
party charged
| It had been conternpIated by the other side thai
| there had been convict. for murder either IL
this country EngleDd, whero th provoeat,oa tC
the ast was alleged 10 be and proves 10 be adultery
To show the faacy of this assertion, the syeakei
read case from "a Johns North Carolina reports
| where the prisoner killed with q wooaen mSslet &
party who had committed adultery with his wife
la this case the deseased was Xxi led while follow
ing the prisoners wife under strong exiting CIR
cumstances yet ihey were not deemed sufficient
prosocation, AID the crime was sdJpged to bs mur
der.
Theceurt in that decided that although tt,
parties went OFF together for the apparent rnrras,
Of committing adultery. and the prisoner believing
thst thsy gone for that purpose followed then
and killed tile sdulterer. yet the circumstances
| were not comsetent to afford Il legal proyocation
The rule ia Manning's case is based, not e Ion tn
fact of afugtery. but upon certain state Of min,
existing as moving cause 10 the killing.
The iaw presunes that this 81 ate of passion exit
only al q certain time. and the party accused ssBo
"a be ainwad the hanefL of tha ifraan i'm nia Of sncl