The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-04-14
JUDGE CRAWL oRD's DECISION.
The Relation of Man and Wife in a
Legal Point.
Testimony Of Miss G. N. RidgcIy, Bridget
Duffy, the Nurse, william W. Mann
and Dr.. Thomas Miller.
THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT.

and intense in this community day as IL was the day Of
the homicide at Madison place. 1t is the sole topic Of con
versation wherever men meet, or women either The
thrilling which transpred yesterday when the
wounds Of Mr. Sckes opened aesh by the touching
evidence Of r. j. Walker and when his emotions so com
petely OveTpo Vered him to render bis from
the Court room necessary, appealed in the pathetic
and eloquent manner to the hearts Of all present
There hardly a dry eye in Court, and GER
tainy not heart remained unaffected by it
This scene, the confession of the faithless wife,
and the descriptions given Of the agonies which Mr. Scke
suffered when the appalling truth forced itself upon his
mind have for him the sympathies of the whole
munty, and his counsel might with the utmost confidence
submit the to the jury without another word Of tes
mony a word of summing up.
The moment the doors opened this morning the
crowd poured in and filed up the space set apart for the
audience.
The New York illustrated papers circulating here
among the lawyers and Others and creating consde
able amusement by the very absurdy OF the sketches
and the absence of smtude Of them TO the per
SONS and things intended to be represented.
Judge Crawford took his seat at 1920 when the Court
duly opened.
Shortly afterwards Mr.. Sickles conducted to his
seat He appeared to have recovered hs compo
sure though his face marked with the lines of recent
and suffering
The counsel for Defence Messrs Brady and Stanton oc
cupied chairs front Of the DOCK and conferred with Mr.
Sickles occasionally.
The names of the jurors having been called and all
having answered to their names, Mr. Carlisle proceeded
argue against the admissby of the confession of Mrs.
sckes.
Mr. Carlisle presumed that the Judge had already con
suited the authorities, and had made up his mind on the
point but still, he (Mr Carlsle) would not have dis.
charged his duty fully did he not oppose the offer Il was
OF the fret importance-an Importance which went the
length OF determining whether justice to become
contemplate sham-that his Honor If he admitted the
evidence at ALL should expressly limit the which
it was to be applied. 1t struck him that there was
not entire concord in the minds of the counsel
for the defence as 10 the purpose for which
the evidence was offered, and for which IL was
admissible. The counsel who offered ii proposed
it for purpose and the counsel who succeeded him
offered it for another. 1t offered by one of the
counsel bearing the a1tus of the prisoners mind
and not as proving the facts stated in it but his
colleague showed that he meant to maintain that
the Iact appealed to fact which ought legally
appealed TO for the entertainment Of the condition
Of the prisoners mind at the time Of, and anterior
to- the homicce Not content with that be claimed that
the fact In question was fact proper with other facts
TO show the irresistible impulse under which the
prisoner moved forward 10 the of the scene
Counsel for Nr. Sickles thought this fast was admssi
ble tending 10 show something of insanity in re-
spec. TO the prisoners mind and appealed to his Bonor to
relax still further the rules Of evidence such point
He argued that az ii may be proved in particular case
that the prisoner quaed the intoxicating bowl so in this
might be proved that the prisoner drained to the
dregs Bgurave cup filled with the bltterest draught
This was rhetoric, but law. In all cases the
sc
to make him drunk, but whether, in point OF fact
he was drunk, either from little drinking or much
drinking. Mr. Brady, however, had Indicated while con.
dnng himself to strictly legal language tina. he had some
enlarged ideas about the question Of insanity aud referred
to case where his Ht nor had spoken prisoners mind
as being somewhat unhDged He Mr. Carlisle) regarded
that TO apply not 10 exhibition Of passion 20 I'M
soundness Of mnd-to insanity Az to all the grounds DIS
tncty TAKEN and the arguments incidentally made he sub
med that they must all come down TO the Of law
and resolve themselves into the single question Of insanity
Now, he had not heard any the counsel claim that
the prisoner insane the time Of the no nce and
he submitted that before the evidence could be received
it must be proposed the single ground that the pris
at the time of the commission of the homicide was
insane and when it was proposed that ground the
prosecution would be prepared TO meet IT, The question
was, whether adultery could be given in evidence in
mitigation Of the crime Of murder to the grade OF man.
slaughter. Such case was decided in the Court of Ap
peals Of one Of the States.
Mr. Phillips-That was the case of slave
Mr. CarlisleIt was; but that makes no difference We
all are ought to be- slaves to the law Now what was
the instrument Of evidence hcres and what was the fact
offered in evidence as tending prove insanity The in
strument of evidence purports to be formal written
deliberate and particular statement in the presence finer
husband concluding with species Of attestng clause
signed by two witnesses and with additional clause
showing that the confession made without any or
hope Of reward This formal deliberate solemn deed of
Of marital rights is offered TO be given
in evidence. The prosecution objected TO it
at first because IL the work of the prisoners
wife his presence and evidently to be inferred al his
instance directly under his control Nobody disputed
the general rule (unless indeed, one Of the oppo.
site counsel to be that the husband and wife are
incompetent to be witnesses, the either for or
against the other in any cause, civil or criminal,
10 which either Of them is party. That coun sel
'eemed to think, however, that the age Of progress
had modified that law and tina. the ruIo was species of
regulation for the benefit Of the husband and which he
may waive. That is not The wife is as incompetent
testify favor she is to testy against her husband
Counsel referred where this Court in the case of
double Indictment refused 70 allow the wife TO testify In
avor Of the person who trial because her test
mony might have lie effect the Of her husband
This not offer 10 bring the wife into Court as wit
ness, but TO produce her declaration What was the an
to that First, that declarations inferior sort
,f testimony; and second, that where witness is mad
missble all the declarations Of that witness are mad
nissble. Dying declarations exceptions 10 gene
raj rule But the fact itself competent 10 be received
Fit be admissible in evidence is because II tends 10
prove something in issuc It might be admissible IL Of
ered to make up the defence Of insanity. If not link in
The chain Of evidence by which proposed 10 make out
The chain Of insanity, on what principle offered no w
He submitted that the wife could be permitted to CON-
tribute one grain Of sand towards the building up OF any
defence for her husband II there were any or dec
sion to tho contrary he would like to see IT,
Council for Mr. Sickles would call attention from nm.
lborities on that point viz Walton and Green VOL
Darlington and Paine 621 Avison aad Kiunerd, VOL g.
East p. 1885, Thompson and wife vs. Trovanyon, D. 4o2
skinner and Glchrst and Bates, vol 8, Watts p 1885, In
Nj these cases the declarations VI tho wife were admitted
10 evidence.