New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-04-19
THIRTEENTH DAYS PROCEEDINGS.


WAsAIxc1oy, Monday, April 49, 1889.
The Court opened at 1920, the usual large audience
bsing in attendance.
Mr. Sickes was coon after yard brought into Court.
The Petit July which had been directed to be in ct
tendance to day had their names called and were e1-
cused from further attendance till this day fortnight
This would indicate intention on the part OF the
Judge to ADMIT the evidence offered.
Counsel for the prosecution are Inundated with coun-
try newspapers containing editorial comments in re-
gsrd TO the conduct Of this trial. Trey have little
time however 70 read profit by the ssge sugges-
tons therein made
Dist1ictAt.orney Ould proceeded TO closs his arsu'
mant against the a1missibHty Of the evidence offered
to prove the adultery He had been endesvoring, he
said VIXEN be closed his remarks on Saturday to show
that the facts offered in evidence on the part OF the
defense did not amount 10 legal proyocation, much
less TO justification and that the questions OF provoca-
tion justification, and cooling time were mere legal
questions He had been interrupted politely OF course,
by question from Mr.. Brady, asking on what were
the jury to pas the Court Determined the ustnet-
ton and the cooling time 1t was the duty of the Jury,
he held to pas upon the facs a. connected with the
killing and to apply the law as enumerated by the
Court. With reference to Justification, proyoeaton
and cooling time the Court has It's peeunar functonS,
and so has the jury II there were no other questions
in the Gaze that was the fault Of the caseone o. tue
incidents of the case. If man were indicted for
poisoning would the learned counsel claim that evi.
oence classification proyocatiop or COOLING time snoud
be given Did not the law declare that in such case
there could be no ratification, no provocatlon, no
cooling time The Jury pass upon the truth
Of the facts offered their suflclency IN
law was question exclusively for the Court.
IL the Court decided that they were sufficient In law,
then the question o. their truth went before the Jury
But if the Court decided that they were not sufficient
in law, then, OF course, they did not go before INC
Jury Ii was the constant practice OF the Courts 70
pass upon provocaton justification, and cooling time
The Judge-Ata different stsse IRON tll', however
Mr.. Brady-We utterly refuse 10 enter into any ds-
cusson Of any question at this time except what re-
ates to the particular point before your Honor fcr DE-
termination. We offered to prove haoitual adultery;
the objection was made TO that A. TO jusnhesAon,
provOcanOn and cooling time, we propose 10 DO neafu
a. future stage in asking the Court for Instructors,
and we mean 10 insist that the Jury are judges OF the
law an the facts; but that time has not arrived yet
Mr. Oud certainly nj, understood the Arguments CT
counsel il the questions Of ushfc son, proyocaton,
ana cooling time, were not now before the Court
Mr.. Philips-I the evidence has tendency 10
ward JUS ifcation that is sufficient.
TIE Dstrict Attorney held that had no suc1 tend
ercy for in law the facts amounted nelner 70 JUSTIN
cation nor provOcaton. lie referred the Court on
this point 70 Addison and 70 lrcde, l'S and ISL ihe
State sgt John p. Creighton. In the case cited by
the other aide Warnings case, the question OF PROV
ocat)n before the Court and the Court there De
clsred what would be and what would not De provo
cessary cecie upon the sufciency Of the evidence 70
constitute legal provocstion Undoubtedly II dia.
Here facts sought to be put IN evidence were 81,
mitted bat the question ives whether they amounted
IN n prOyOcs,On or justification. 11e same doctrine
came Nd incidentally in Selfidge's case, as TO toe
effect which the Law ought to give, and whica the
july must give TO certain qpeetlons anec'lng nonor
and dishonOr abd there the Court decided the qeeS,
ton. Counsel deferred to vol = ATchioails |'i'1A"'
Practice. o-,, 4.
Al this point the Court interrupted Mr. Oai, to
have the Grand Jury called.
The Court relieved them from further attendance
until this DAY fortnight.
Mr. Ould resumfng, replied to the proposition Of
Mr. Philips, that this evidence was competent for re-
buttrg the question. Th.t, be Oaldl thought, whs
begpI z the question. Was the evidence OF sueh
chsractos on lie face would be legal reout,i OF
malice If not il was not competent. II had been
sso arcued thst the evidence was competent as a.
fectipg the question whether the PASSION was rea oi
fcisnet. II was immateral ior the Jury - hnd ga,
whether was real or ieigred II had been also argued
that the deceased w.s giving the signal OF Alaesy,
ard A. therefore the evidence vas competent oat
II as the prosecution held the adultery itself was no'
K gal pTOvocauon or llstAe alon, hoW col9 "a INV,
eaton Ia adultery be The other learned counsel
Mr. Graham had argued that the evidence OF sduI-
tery was al.ays properly before the Court N q vi'
net &C. In IIetels case the qaestion csue psC'e az
Court whether the evidence u adultery c2uh Dc a.
mtted 70 reduce the grade Of homicide ana tnere tns
Cont reiected such evidence. lie conten1ei tnAt
where such evidence admitted, i was siuh''ea
only as part of The res ges'e
lie Judre-In the case OF Fisher s Darlington
eno Painei the whole csse ~ detailed the ln1er'sN
between IT, father ard the man in whose house the
crime was committed; il Wal committed more tnan
enee AM yet al the circumstsnoes were gone MO 20
thai there il was impos<ibls thst tae facts proved
could have been part OF the res geSt%.
District A,toney-Tne csse N No- iredeA "A'
nrecisely the kind Of care alladed to.
Nr. Crabsn-There al the proofs were got &c.
Dis,rict.Aitorey-Thoy were rasde P.It o: iae
evidence Of the prosecution, AID were put a. e'l
tie defense 10 point ont case where oeecuon Tss
msds 10 srch eyidsnce and not sustained. II hsi
been also set 20 here that the Indictment reeed that
d,csssed at tie time Of the homicide was IN she P-ac.
q. God ard ot tho ptsd slates ard ,aA. he Ss' a''