Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1859-04-16

| adultery. As for the third point, IL was one In
which the husband knew that bis wife was con.
hrmed adulteress, who with her hand on heI
child's head, answered with the other signal,
| from her paramour who had made his child
motherless. Now this was the position Of the de.
| fence.
He (Mr C.) acceded to the prisoner his Claim
Of capability realize and appreciate all the obli
| cations of marital rights Granting too that lac
was a capable, from his nice sense of honor
| Of being so wrought mp as the defence claimed;
| vet he had coolly tracked the whole thing NE
was aware that this offer of evidence embraced mo
such facts, bot he was addressing a Judge who
knew that the paper offered as the woman's con-
fession was drawn mp on the Saturday ight before
the killing, who knew that the adultery had been
alleged by the defence to be habtual aud that the
| homicide took place on the waving Of the fiay
| when the husband possessed the knowledge Of
previous facts he had detailed, which knowledge
made 1t clear that no outrage could then be COM
mitted on him.
Did the defence mean that the prisoner had con-
digned the wonIan's offence and that he would
have taken her back but for the waving of the ao
in his presence on Sunday, He spoke not now as 10
the character of the fact but In view Of the letter
| Of the law. What was there to make him rush
out and iDfct summary punishment on the de-
ceased Ii was commended on the other side that
he had committed no crime which the law pun
tshed That they Were RENTED to the higher
law. They contended that society had not kept
its compact with Daniel f.. Sickles. They say he
made his terms with society. One term was that
society should protect him from the suffering
brought upon him should his wife commit adult
try.
These were tine terms and society failed to per-
form its part of the contract Here he brought his
wife, IN the pursuit Of his aspiring ambition and
here he found no law to protect him from the
adulterer. So says the defence. We instructed
that in this benighted District the law provided
no punishment for the adulterer. We are told that
woman must be protected from herself and because
the law does not protect her, she must be shut up
in dungeon Because she is frailty, and Justly -
a herh Iigh nd INNS and In bis door nj
with bowieknife slav the adulterer, or else the
adulterer has only to wave the flag and only show
her how to bring desOlatiOn to her household, and
she III do it. Not this woman, but all women. Ac-
cording to the law under which the Court sat.
there was no law Ia punish the commission of a
felony. This was the position of the defence, but
they were mistaken. There was law here to pun
ish adultery
The speaker remembered several cases of adul-
terry which had been tried in this court since Judge
Crawford sat on the bench. 1t was misdemeanor
here, and one punishable under our law under an
act of Maryland.
Some writers said this was not an indctable case
under the common law and others that IL was.
w riters di fered to this.
Mr.. Magruder mentioned, incidentally that the
penalty for adultery under the statute of Maryland
alluded to by Mr.. Carlisle was the fine of We hun
dred pounds of tobacco.
Mr. Phillips followed on the other side con-
trasting the pilit of Mr.. Carlisles remarks with
the point At issue. IL had been the object Of that
address to exclude from the jury the truth Of the
character of the prOvOcation which led to the
commission Of the alleged crime He gave the
warning to the gentleman. there was not in this
land jury which would render such verdict as
had been demanded by him.
Mr.. Phillips proceeded to examine the evidence
adduced as to the provocaton under which the
prisoner acted. Is 1t competent under any cir
cuInstlnces to prove the adultery! Noting the
technical words Of the indictment indicating
malice, he proceeded upon definition of the
TERMS murder and manslauyIteT. In reference to
malice its presence is detected in the action of
person deliberately bent on mischief. lie claimed
that if a fresh provOcatiOn interviewed between an
old grmdge and the killing, the act was referred
by the Law to the Last prOvocation. and not to the
old grudg e.
The prisoner may relieve himself Of the pre-
SUMPTION OF malice by two mOdes-by showing
new ProvOcatiOn and by proving friendly feeling
existing between tile prisoner and the deceased
prior to the killing. When they attempted to
show the provOcation justifying the art they were
met 10y the prosecution denying the admissablity
of such evidence.
Mr.. Philips quoted from the Commonwealth VS.
Bell larrisons Reports, p. 162, to show that pas
sion, arising from sufficient prOvOcation is eyi
dence Of absence Of malice.
1t is admitted that if father had killed one who
had beaten his son, and was Indicted for murder,
the provocation may be shown in evidence; but
here, where the husband Stays the seducer of his
wife, the provocaton for the passion under which
the actwas committed cannot be shown, according
To the argument on the other side.
The law says adultery is u greater provocation
than that where the son Is beaten, vet the aryli-
ment is that this prOvocation cannot be shown as
| in that of the latter case.
Ii is maintained the other side that il the
husband sees the aduterer in the act II mitigates
the crime of killing; but If he does not il, he
| has no provOcatiOn in the eye of the law. The
husband must see with his eyes the act of adulte-
~. Now, what is the eye! The eye, the ear the
touch, are messengers Of the mind. Why is il
that only one messenger the eve, is To direct the
| action of the mind Why not the ear IL man
through his or his touch discovers the fact OF
adultery why is not this evidence,
| At Mobile a steved0re returning to his home al
night entered his bedroom in darkness and found
| man in his bed. He drew his stevedore knife
and stabbed the man repeated blows till he fell
dead. He called for light and found, as in the
case here, that the man who had wronged him
Il dear friend Ii the touch here that fur
nished the proof. Ii was conclusive as if fur
nished by the eye.
1t now being near three O'Clock. Mr. Phillips
gave way for an adjournment.