Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1859-04-26
LOCAL NEWS. ?
Trial Of Daniel Z. sickies fer the killing
Of Philip Barton Key.
CRIMINAL COURT. n. CRAwYoRp, judge.
TWENTIETH DAY-rUEsDIy
THE MADISON PLACE MURDER.

morning with the air Of men expecting To he soor
relieved Of an irksome duty LARGER crowd nj
spectators than usual filed the space inside and
outside the bar, in anticipation doubtless of wit
Messing the closing scenes Of the trial
Judge Crawford, on taking his seat announced
Of the jurors, Mr.. Reason Arnold, which, il there
was no objection he would cause to be given to
No objection having been offered the note was
At half-Pasi ten the prisoner was brought in and
the jury called 80. = . !. : =
Mr.. Ould resumed his argument upon the in
sHucnons, saying, in commencing, that when he
was addressing the court yesterday on its adjourn
Hent he was endeayoring to show that the rule
adopted in Manning's case was alienation of
W" law In existence previously. He maintained
that the strict fle Of the court IL carried ont At
that time would have found Manning guilty of
murder bot that, In view of the provocaiion, the
law was softened from verdict of murder to man
slaughter; and that the rule had never been rtbcr
RELAXED To further relax IL would be to oyerturn
the bass OF society II the fact Of adultery would
Justify the killing, IL would De carried further-
the husband when the wife was slandered or Ii
brl!rd would stay the offender, and the principle
Of justification would be the sane
Hequotcd from Blackstone to show how far the
law has gone, either in ancient modern times
In neither ancient nor modern times has trespass
and ccntunely, which make up the proyOcation of
The crime Of adultery, been held to justify the SUI
Irrrr in taking the law into his own hands The
bench in those times would not even receive YER
dict which dscOuntenanced this principle.
lie quoted from the ease of RYAN, I'd Wheeler
page y, in which it was held by the court that
unless the jury could find mitigating circumstan-
Ces. the crime was murder; that the burden of
proof rested upon the prisoner; that if man sur
Prise another In adultery with his wife and killed
BIN on the spot 1t was justihable but that if the
lultery had been committed previously to the
killing, the killing was murder.
in this case there were three parties In the ROOM
TIE wife asleep, drunk, the adulterer dead, and
husband IF md
proved that they had all been in the room some
time. The Court held that if the crime was com
mittcd after the adultery although in the same
roOm) and out Of revenge, il was murder; il in his
sight and the adultercr was killed i'm the act, ii
was manslaughter; IL the offender was commit
tag rape upon the wife then the act Of the hus-
hand was justihabe.
Now, as to the theory Of adultery being justifi-
cation of homicide, there was another case Itbe
CaS, OF Jarboe one presenting this distinct issue
that If the jury believe there promise Of mar
rage, and that the deceased had seduced the pris
OneI sister vet it constituted neither iust cation
nor legal prOvOcation, In the eve of the law
In the ease Of Singleton Mercer there was 4 sup-
ccstlon of insanity, and the whole scope of the de-
fence was TO show that at the time the killing WIS
committed the slayer was insane. The same was
tf"e IN smiths case in Philadelphia. In Stump's
c'se. IN Baltimore, quoted also on the other side
there IS no report OF the courts decision
" tn the third position taken on the other side
that the facts show that the deceased was caught
in the act of adultery and that fact affords allie
vittiOn Of the killing 1t was contended on
tie other side that 1t was not necessary to
c1tch the parties in fGgraR.e dslicfo but To
furnish proof Of adultery and they had quo
ted cases, but those citations Mr.. o. contend
ed Were merely upon what constituted proof
al adultery In tue cases mentioned. and had moth
Ing whatever to do with the justification. The
law says that although the husband has abiding
proof of the adultery vet IL he pursue the adulteref
and Stay him il is murder. Again as to the ground
that If the adultery il committed with the consent
of the wife II Is yet forcible. He would ask if
this did not do away entirely with the distinction
between rape and seduction, If this was forcible
II was rape, and If it was rape Key was guilty Of
rape, and Sickles could have sent him to the pen
itentiary under the law Of 1881; whereas the de-
itnce claim that the prisoner had no adequate re-
II is neither law, nor ought to be law. that
mln IS equally rs guilty if he commit seduction
or adultery Ss II he commit rape. The law has
this extent, that where the husband is present
the wife's consent avails not
Again, the other side say that to protect a ripht
Il never act Of lawless violence That he
would not deny, but that protection must be ex-
erclsed under the law. the same a man enforces
his night 10 his property in the Of debtor
where If he commits assault and battery upon that
debtor he is placed in the wrong. ~
The last ground taken by Mr.. Stanton was that
This case stood upon the great doctrine Of sefde-
fence. Self-defence in what, The adultery had
been committed-how can self-defence be applied
IN the case Of action already passed LIN the case
CT felonlons assault the party is not permitted to
retiilate upon his opponent after the attack Is
ended.
The other side must then shoulder the doctrine
that Sickles had only reason to suppose an act of
adultery he was justified in sallying out for pur-
poses OF vengeance, as according to the ruling of
this court if party. in of assault has reason
T. believe that he is in danger of his life he is JUS
tined IN killing. Ii the other side stand on the
ground Of selfdefence. they must shoulder neces-
saTiIy this PoSiton-that even had no adultery
been committed, il the prisoner had reason to be-
ling.
Taking a suggestions case, a husband NAV
have been bred in brothels; he NAV have carried
dishonor to the house of neighbor; nay II is not
an imPosslblhty that he may, for private ends
have battered away the virtue of his wife to the
very man he slew. Was the justification of self.
defence TO he urged, =
Mr.. u. cad from the books tn show I'm vhst
cases justification for homicide can be set up VIII,
the slayer is acting In sef-defence Also from LIST
Manning, In 10Th Michigan Reports, to show that
himself demands Of him to do so. The provision
ct the New York statute was precisely the same as
that Of the common law with reference to this
question OF seifdefence, and had been changed in
nn material respect With reference to the future
could any such defence as adultery be set up as
Justification for murder,
The principle Of self-defence could not apply to
the case Of Sickles. Even had the deceased been
going to the prisoners house for the purpose of
committing felony, let alone a misdemeanOr the
prisoner would not have been justified in taking
his life The gentleman on the other side had i'm
Stating his conclusions, said, if his doctrine was
hot carried out by the court, the doors of this
courthouse might as well be closed
The SPEAKER, an humble citizen. heard the
united voice of this community denounce such
doctrine. In a Christian community the only
prOteCuOn to wonIan's virtue was tn be found in
her own character, and sense Of self protection
Every pure woman carried that weapon about
with her, and no villain could resist the showing
ct that weapon for an instant Sad would be the
late OF the matrons Of this country were this not
so The spirit Of virtue tells woman like fash
cf lightning what are the intentions OF the man
who advances towards her.
This princi Pile was found everywhere IL was
circle OF glory, which shed its light over the
house Of every woman, whether high or low in
state IL was always there To resist the advance of
every Shiny reProbate who dared TO 90 forth to
practice his Infamous designs. III twas to be de-
Tended by tiie knife, the sword and the pistol il
was unworthy of protection. The history of the
world In past times showed this to be true II
stood out on the pages of history the fixed truth
That where woman has stood alone for her own
protection she has risen above any CONTAINING
influence When the virtuous woman ceases 10
lie her own protection she and her virtue ceases
TO exist.
Mr. Stanton had said that where the law did not
afford edress, II left il for the ind ydua to protect
himself IL was not necessary foe him 90 } TO CON-
Inent on that point; but he would read from eth
Blac kstOhe, 9th page, where the doctrine was laid