The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-05-05


power sufficient TO apply that knowledge 70
bis own case, and 70 know that II he does
the act, be will do wrong and receive psn.
ishment, such partial insanity is not sniff.
cient 10 excuse him from the responsibility
for criminal acts. Vol. MetcaIfe's re-
ports, pages 500, sol, and SOB. The sec.
ond and third instructions asked for by The
United States, will be answered together.
They are in these words
Ell the Jury believe from the evidence that
the deceased was killed by the prisoner by
means Of a leaieH bullet discharged from q
pistol, such killing implies malice In law, and
| IA murder.
THAT the burden Of rebuttibg the presnmp.
ton Of malice by showing circumstances Of al
deviation, excuse or Justification, rests on the
| prisoner, and II Is incumbent on him TO make
out circumstances TO the satisfaetion Of the
Jury. unless they arise out Of tho evidence pro
duced against him. "
Both these instructions are granted. The
fourth instruction asked for by the United
States Is 10 these words
That every person 10 presumed 10 be Of
sound mind until the contrary IL proved, and
tho burden OF rebattng this presumption rests
| on tho prisoner"
This prayer Of the United States is answer
ed by prayer eleven ofthe defence. The eth
instruction asked by the United States ia in
Theses words
"lf the Jury believe, from the evidence, that
the deceased. previous 10 tho day Of his death,
| had adalterous intercourse with the wife Of the
prisoner and further, that tho deceased, On
the day Of his death, shortly before the prison.
or left HIS house, made signals inviting 10 q
further act 0y art M Auxiliary ~ hieh AID nj
mails, or u portion Of them, were seen by the
prisoner, and that influenced by such provoca
ton, the prisoner took the life Of the deceased,
such proyoc alton does not justify the act. or
reduce such killing from murder TO mansaugh
ter"
Such, the Court thinks, 10 the law, and
grants the instruction. Now We come to
those askel on the part Of the defence, the
first VI which Is Ia thess words:
There Ia no presumption Of malice In this
case, II any proof Of alienation, excuse or
Justification arise out Of the evidence for tho
prssec utlen."
There il, gentlemen, legl presumption
OF malice In every deliberate killing, and the
burden Of repelling it Ia on the slayer, unless
evidence Of alienation. mitigation, excuse
or justification, arise out Of the evidence
adduced against him. The alienation, init.
igstion, excuse or notification must be such
az the law prescribes, and within the limits
already laid down Ia the instr lctisns given
to you. The sesond instruction asked for
by the defence Is:
The existence of malice 10 no, presumsbl
In this case, II on any rational theory oousis
tent with all tho evidence, the homicide was
either )urtihAble, exoasable, or an act Of man
slaughter
The answer to the first prayer will be Ia.
ken In connection with his response to pray
er number two: at upon any course of
reasoning consistent with all tho evidence"
and the law AZ laid down by you to the
Court, and the rules by which II is ascer-
tanned what is legal provocation, wha, is
Justification or excuse, you should come %
the conclusion that there was such justiilca.
ton or excuse, or that the homicide was
manSaughter, then tho presumption Of NAL.
lee which every killing Of human being
involves, "a met. You will rccolect that
manslaughter Is the killing Of man with
out malice. The third prayer on the part
OF the defence is:
"lf on the whole evidence presented by tho
prosecution, there IN any rational hypothesis
consistent with tho conclusion that the homi.
edo va. justidable or escusable, the defendant
cannot be convicted
The answer given to prayer number two
Ia an answer TO that The fourth prayer
isl
III the Jury believe that Mr.. Sckles, when
the homicide occurred, intended to kill Mr..
Key, be cannot be convicted Of msnslaughter."
This instruction the Court declines to
give manslaughter may exist, and most
frequently does where the slayer intended to
destroy life but under circumstances which
reduce the defence. The fifth prayer Ia In
these words
Itis for the Jury to determine, under all
the circumstances OF the case, whether the act
charged upon Mr. Sicklss il murder or jastiha.
Bic homicide
Neither can this instruction be granted,
a. to the Jury belongs the decision by mat
tiers Of fact. and to the Court the decisions OF
matters OF law. which IL Is the duty OF the
Jury to receive frou, the Court, and from
tho evidence aud the law applied to the facts,
IL IL the province and legal right Of the Jury
to return general verdict Of guilty or not
guilty OF murder or mapslaughter. The
sixth instructions for the defence are
" II tho Jury lind that Mr.. sicklss killed Mr..
Key while the latter vac 10 criminal intercourse
with the wire OF the former, Mr.. sicklss cannot
be convicted Of either murder or man
siaus liter"
II this prayer refers TO actual (existing at
the momen,) aduterous intercourse with the
vito OF the prisoner, the Staying Of the de-
cessd would be nanslasghter. and by ex.
isting adultery, do not mean that the pris-
oner stood by and Witnessed the fact of
adultery progressing, for II is easy 20 sup
pose the actual fact To BE- established simul.
tAneously with the killing by other evidence.
in perfect eonssstsnce with the law; il. for
in tane,, the husband saw tho adu,erer
leave the bed of the wife. or shot him while
trying to escape from bus chamber, II,
however. a day or halt u dry intervene be-
tween the conviction of the husband OF the
guilt OF his wife and the deceas,d. aud after
tho laps OF such time, tie husband take the
-