The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-04-20

Judge were Mnos or Rhadamanthus sitting
to administer bloody code in the realms of Pluto
The Court hoped the counsel would not indulge
in remarks of that kind.
Mr.. Magruder said there were here two prosecu
tors, rather unusual spectacle in this Court; one
public prosecutor and the other representing pri-
vate interests. 1t was fact notorious and which
could not be denied, that the Chief Magistrate of
the United States had been applied to to furnish
additional counsel for the prosecution, and had de-
clined to do so.
The Court again stopped the counsel, and hoped
he would confne his remarks to the law question,
and not introduce the Chief Magistrate into his
speech.
Mr.. Carlisle thought it would be better for the
gentleman to answer his arguments instead of car
ping at his presence.
MIR. Magruder went on to argue that these de-
clarations, antecedent to the homicide, were part
of the res geste. He quoted several extracts from
"a Harris and McHenry's Reports, page 120, de-
cision rendered in Maryland as far back as 1885,
showing that the declarations of the prisoner are
admissible, as going to explain his conduct and in
order to show the quo amino. He also quoted lst
Greenleaf, section 10l, as bearing on the same
point; and Whartons Criminal Law sections "a and
n. In order to constitute the crime of murder, it
is necessary that the person killed shall be rea-
sonable creature and in the peace of the communi-
ty; and they would show that in this case the de-
ceased was engaged in an unlawful outrage upOn
the rights OF the prisoner when he was slain He
was not in the peace of the community, and was
not therefore entitled to the protection of the law
A man could repel force by force against one who
intended to commit felony upon him. This right
was founded on the law of nature and if death en-
sued, the killer would be justified The law of self
defence was not confined to the mere act of defend
ing ones SELF man had also right to defend his
own, and if the deceased at the time of his death
was meditatng attack on the wife (who is one
desh with the husband, the husband might resist
and was excusable for doing what he did in vindi-
cation of the rights of man. This was no new doc
trine, and this right derived no new sanction
r;r
which man could not be deprived by
society. If man could take the life of a
housebreaker, had he not equal right to defend
his wife who is dearer to him than aupbt else
Vattel cited, in support of this proposition.
(page AZ, on the subject of dueing) Here it was
stated that where society fails to afford protection
men had right to fall back upon the primary laws
OF self-deence. Human laws were not made for
angels, and they have regard to human fraity.-
Much allowance is to be made for those exaspera-
tions of mind engendered by wrongs and injuries
which to most men are intolerable. What recon-
pense does society make for such an injury as the
defendant has received? The law imposes a fine of
three pounds currency, or twelve hundred pounds
OF tobacco; was that just compensation or was it
not rather an insult and aggrayation that the law
has imposed for such tremendous crime as this
The deceased had been seen on that day repeatedly
houtng his signals of assignation, endeavoring to
lure the wife of the defendant to take still lower
STEP it it were possible, in her career of sin and
shame. The defendant saw this; and was not this
enough to drive reason from her throne and to ex-
cite him to the homicide?
Mr.. Magruder also cited the case of the State Us.
John, and Ryon's case, in Wheeler's Criminal
Cases. The present case was much stronger than
that last quoted, where the man did not slay abe
adulterer until five hours after the act was com
mltted Jarboe's case again referred to- and
Mr. Magruder argued that under the ruling of the
Court Yesterday this evidence was clearly admissi-
Bile. This was matter for the discretion of the
Court but that discretion ought to be exercised hu-
namely, an tacorem ve ct tbertatis
MIR. Ould said it was not his purpose to discuss
this question at ALL 1t had already been sufficient
ly discussed and he would not take up the valuable
time of the Court by saying anything further upon
the subject. He simply arose to make remark
The motives which had actuated the prosecution in
this case had already been frankly stated. If they
were not received in the spirit in which they had
been stated he could not help it. They must go
forth to the country facts of which others are
to Judge. The gentleman says that he entertafns
the kndest regards and the highest respect for nv
associate and myself in the conduct of this case
These feelings certainly returned upon our part:
but, entertaining these feelings, it seemed strange
to me that he should say that the in the
conduct OF this case had suppressed the truth and
believes in his heart and at the same time stated
that he had the kndliest regards for those gentle
men who had conducted the prosecution where the
truth was suppressed and falsehood suggested,
have only to say that, in my humble Judgment it
was n confession humiliatipg to himself
Mr.. Magruder.-If the gentleman will allow me,
l said that the prosecution was urged on upon
the basis OF the suppression Of truth and the sug-
gestion OF falsehood; what we consider as truth
and falsehood and undoubtedly intended by that
remark to characterize by those terms the obiec-
tions which considered technical and arbitrary,
that had been urged by the counsel upon the other
side the only effect of which would be to suppress
what we consider truth. and to suggest view that
we consider false | did not mean to say that the
gentleman knowingly and wlfully suppressed what
he knew to be the truth. | hope the gentleman
understands me- and, understanding me- will do JUS
tice to my position.
Mr.. Ould.-Certainly. He says have made as
saults upon the counsel, so far as he and his COL
leagues are concerned, in reference to illusions that
have made; but he must understand them as hay-
ing been made entirely in playful spirit not only
those in reference to the gentlemen with whom he
is associated but in reference to others who have
not appeared in the case.
Mr.. Magruder.-I am very GLAD that the District
Attorney has had an opportunity to make the
amende honorable.
The Court then gave its decision on the question.
and ruled that as to what the prisoner said before
leaving his house and shortly before the shooting,
declarations of the defendant were never evidence
for him. except when they part of the res qese
or are made evidence by the prosecution, AS to
the length of time it would take to walk from the
house OF the defendant to the place where this mel
ancholy affair occurred, the length of the square
was well known, he presumed, to everybody and
certainly to the jury and counsel, and would be
such not to enttle it to belong to the res oests
There was but one point of view to enttle this to
be received; that in of the aspects in which
it had been presented to the Court, as evidence
the insanity of the prisoner, evidence tending to
prove his insanity at the time the act was committed
AS far as the declarations went to show that the
Court thought it might be evidences for the acts
and declarations of man who is alleged to be in
sane if the fact be so, are the best possible
evidence of insanity. What he SAYS what he does
may may not be evidence of insanity; but if thev
offered for that purpose the Court did not feel
at liberty that single to reject them: but
they were rejected as far as geste and must be
submitted to the jury simply as evidence of insan-
ity at the time, and for no other purpose ANY
thing that said or done by man up to the
moment of killing, or even afterwards might be
evidence of insanity might not be. 1t was re-
ceived by this Court in the of Day, all through
period OF some months, up to the very act of
killing.
The question then repeated to the witness
what Sickles sal to him when he came down
stairs on that Sunday, just previous to the homi-
eide.
Mr.. Woodbridge replied.-''That villain has Just
passed my door and made signals to nv wife," was
the declaration of Sckles to witness or words to
that effect: witness made inquiry whether the state
ments in the anonymous letter were true; communi-
Gated the fact to Sckles Friday; this was late in
the afternoon, after gas-light; stated that had OBJ
tanned the consent of parties living opposite to oc-
cupy room there on the next day; the young man
had said to that the lady last there on Thurs
day, and told Mr.. Sickles of that; when after
wards told him it was Wednesday and not Thursday
that the woman there last, that made him ex-
cited; and | then gave a description of the
dresses the woman had worn ON that and on previous
occasions when she went to this house with Mr. Kew;
he recognized most of them the apparel of his
wife, and it appeared at to convince him that
it was his wife; | told him that this lady had
come there two three times a week, and
described to him how towel would be put out
the window, and that the neighbors all knew from
that fact when Mr.. Key was in the house, and that
she was coming; Key had said that the house had
been hired for Senator or Congressman; | told
Mr.. Sickles all these reports that l had heard; he
said his hope was that it not his wife, because
he had made inquiries and found that his wife could
not have been there on Thursday; but when | told
him it was on Wednesday and not Thursday, it un-
manned him completely.
Cross-examined by Mr.. Carsle.-The letter was
shown to witness about one o'clock at the Capitol
in the of the Speakers chair; Sickles had been
up in the ladies' gallery and came down; witness
saw him and he then read the letter to him; he said
he generally threw anonymous letters aside, out
this contained statements that could be so easily
proved or disproved that he would investigate the
matter; he had himself been to the spot and
found that the house there as described
and was hired by P. Barton Key of man by
the name of Gray, and that lady was in the habit
of coming there; he asked witness as a friend to
try and find out whether the statements were true
or false, and they went in carriage together up
to 18th street. where Sick.es pointed the house
to witness; when the communication was made on
FRIDAY Sickles put his hands to his head much