The daily press. (Cincinnati [Ohio) 1859-1859, 1859-04-19
Keys aud Mrs. Sickles Caught Eating
Salad and Drinking Wine, Q


WASHINGTON, April 18.-The Court opened
TINS morning at the usual hour, a large aud
lence being in attendance. The petit jury,
"hien nad been directed to be in attendance
to-day, had their names called, and were ex-
cused from further attendance till this day
fortnight.
ms would indicate an intention on the part
of the Judge to admit the evidence offered,
District Attorney ould proceeded to close his
argument against the adinssibility of the ey-
ldence offered to prove adultery.
ne nad been endeavoring, he said, when he
closed ais remarks on Saturday, to show that
the facts offered in evidence, on the part of the
defense, did not amount to legal provocation,
much less to Justification, and that the ques-
TONS OF proyoSaton,. Justification and cooling
time were legal questions.
ne nso oeen tnen interrupted, politely, of
courseI oy queSuon from Mr.. Brady, asking
on wnat were the jury TO passY
Ii the court determined the justification and
the cooling time, it was the duty of the jury, he
neld, 10 pass upon the facts as connected with
tne kiiiln 8, ana 10 apply the law enunciated by
the Court with reference to the justification,
provocation and cooling time. The Court has
its its peculiar functions, and so has the jury. If
there were no other questions in the case, that
was the iault OF the case.
Inc jury Is to pass upon the truth of the
iacts onered-their suttieiency law was ques-
uon exclusively for the Court. If the Court
deelded that they were sufficient in law, then
the question OF their truth went before the
jury; but II the Court decided that they were
not sufficient in law, then, of course, they did
not go before the jury.
twas tue constant practice OF courts to pass
upon proVocauon, Jushhcation and cooling
ume.
ouage-At Inherent stage from this, now
ever.
mr. Drauy--W utterly refuse to enter into
any discussion OF any question at this time,
except what relates to the particular point be-
lore your h0nor Tor denomination.
we oHered 10 prove hHbitual adultery. OBJ
Jeclon was made to thnt As to justification,
ProVoeation and cooling lime, We propose to be
heard at a future stage.
In asking the Court for instructions, we in
tend to insist that the jury are the judges of
the law ana OF the 'acts, but that time has not
arri.eoy yet,
mr' oulc-l certainly misunderstood tho
arguments ol counsel, IL the questions OF JUS
tlncatlon, proVocauon and cooling time were
nUS now peiore the Court
Mr. fnliIPs-it the evidence has ten
uenoy toward Justlhcatlon, that is sufficient.
The District Attorney held that it had no
sucn tendency, 1or In law the facts amounted
neltner 10 5Ustlhcatlon nor provocation. In the
case clted oy the other side, (Manning,s case,)
tne question OF proyocation was before the
court, ana the Court there declared what would
DC ana What would not be sufficient provo
catIo1.
Dlu not every Court, IN cases Of murder,
necessarily decide upon the sufticiency of evil
dence 70 constitute legal provocation In law
undoubtedly IT dld. Here the facts sought to
% put IN evidence were admitted, but the
quesuon was, Wnetner they amounted to q
PrUvocaeion OF Jusuncation.
Inc sulne uocCrlhe came up incidentally in
heeirages case as 10 the enect what the law
ought to give and what the jury must give to
certain quesuons aneeting honor and dishonor,
ana these the Court decided the question.
Inc counsel ior the defense referred to the
second volume or otArchioald's Criminal Practice.
MI Vaid reSuming, replied to the PROPOSE
t'oh Vi MT rnlliiPs tnat the evidence was COM
petent Tor rebutting malice.
IL had been argued that the evidence was
compeIent as anecting the question whether
Iue Passloh OF the prisoner was real or feigned.
IL was immaterial for the jury to find out
"hetner II was real or feigned.
II nau peen also argued that the deceased
was giving tne signal OF adultery, and that,
lneIelore, tne eVluehce was competent; but II,
as Sne prosecution neid, the adultery itself was
not u Iegal ProVocauon or Justinoation, how
NJ, n,
tn1 ieu.neu oounsei luraham) had argued
Una. tne eviuence OF adultery was Always prop
ery "eiu,e sne Oourt. ne eontended that
.,a "neio SUN evluence was aumitted, IL was ad-
hi1.o1 oniy as part ol tne res gestde'
ouoge-An .ne case oi harrington and Paine,
ue "nIlo tl Ease 10 oetaliedj tne interview be-
.meen .S sne iatner anu tne man IN whose mouse
'n9 zinc was ..1 coull,itteu.
~ ~ "'s oonnii.teu more tnan once ana yet
ah az .no 0nOums'ances were gone lnto, 80 that
snu ',iS ~ was ilnPosstoie that the iacts proved
0oT,u mi..N. na.e oeen Par' Ur r, the res 9es'oe:
NOS rroo;soi1 .I r case IN or lredeii
was Mp piecisey Gset sne Hlnu ol case slluded 70.
ot ~ mere "ii INC proofs were
sOT Gin..,.. -. ... MI,
g ov tho e'';a aeeoihoy hoynIney were maze part
~ . 'ne o'auehoe ,;do oi tne prGsecuuGh' ana were
RL ~ 40 eSiuoho1 connee'ee WIN tne homlclde.
t nne 0Ounsei cnalengea tne oefence 70 point
Su;dercs sO Ond MnOra oi Oo;onS were naue 10 such