The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-04-10
SUNDAY MORNING, APRIL 10, 1850.


srss. me person or body of the Wits Is .hs
poper,3 ftne huscsnd, and me wme e. cannss consea
Fiyht ogsrl lhe sJn'iercy az he rlvshed her. H.
quoted from second wbeeer's Criminal Cases. the People
RyOD. ing where the wie's virtue does not
keep sdnlerer let her Drerpose the fear Of her
husband He referred to o,ber authorities IN this connec
tion showing that IN defending his wife the husband de
fsnds himself There points be propoeci to
argue namely to how far the govepmen bound 10
make The case against the defendant and what
Of proof should sstisfy the jury second, how far
tbe old rule NJ malice presumed 10 prevail
F ap the present time in the administration Of
criminal justice and how far il IS controlled by The una
perta presumption that every one is supposed innocent
lii proved faiiiy third. tpe he,nousness OF The crime:
declared by the Bbe fourth the or principle OF
tho old rule that paates the set coumiued by the bs
bard who discovers the aduhery; nfh, shat was the e.
feet of the rule which lowered the offence 10 mansaugh
ter made It equivalent tan.amount acquttai;
sixth how far the provocaton OF the deceased 10 the de-
fehdnLt acted affected the defendants mind 10
shield him from all the legal consequences seventh,
to whether sufficient time had elapsed for his passion to
cool We ne fad attack sae nsofy o. Inc ins
presumption. We cay the old rule Of law that killing
pesunpve evidence Of malice, no longer belongs 10 tho
law II s Oh facts ana not presumpton that In,p
must be condemned for offence involving hts nfe and
liberty The jury cannot convict unless they CONSCIENTIOUS
" believe that the facts are embraced u the presumption
He understood the Argument OF the District Attorney W
he that the law presumed when tie act Of killing
ccoitoia 10 his heart That was not the prcsanpon Of
tie law For himself he would rather presume, where
| no motive was shown that the killer was insane On
this yot he referred TO decision the Of tho 20
pie Mccain, in Smiths reports. II tho duty Of
the TO prove their cdse II they alleged that
tile killing was mere wantonDess they must prove Il.
| They bod not done Justice Brown, In the case re.
| fered TO, ruled that the proving Of malice
yfcsecut,on. rbe rule OF presum pton originated
Time when the property Of fclon reverted to The crown,
and when II the interest Of tbe government IN pro-
cure convictions. He conteuded The sanity OF the Of
fenders mind was TO be made out afrmativey by the
prosecution He insisted that they could stand before the
jury this morning and demand the acqual OF Mr. Sckes
There is enough, he said, IN the case to melt the
heart that s not cut nom the unwedgeabe gnared oak
for In the of his mind when the deed done and
he reapsiDg into his insanity in the mids. of he
grief he exclaimed e has soed he has defIed my bel'
That was the domir sentiment of his bosom Twelve
| lpdians on whom the light civilization never broke,
would repe with Indignation the idea Of convictne man
on the testimony placed before you oD the part
this prosecution The cardinal presumption Of the law
that every man Is TO be supposed innocent till proved
guilty Not so, gays the prosecutions the law must pre-
sumo Mr. Sckles to be murderer, because it Ia proved
he discharged his pistol in the breast OF his victim Was
not the TO that the prisoner at the
time In sound mind and me moryY lie held that they
The effect Of such presumption prevent the
prosecution being non suited. The oath Of juror
that he should delverapce make upon the evidence
Not ssys the counsel for the government the jury
act on the presumption Of law But the oahs Of jmy
could rot be redeemed unless they could look ter Maker
the face and say that every fact found in their verdict
was fact firmly proved in the testimony Of the
He passed to the second question which he proposed
namely whether the rule tnat the law malice
from the fact of killing is part OF the criminal
jurisprudence Of our country In denial of that be
prdge's case; in Blackstone, page 3O2 and
| 10 the case Of McCann volume H. of Smiths Report
pages 20 and Co. in the state Of New York where the
tho sCourt would direct the acqutsa Of the prisoner
Was there anything proved in this that quadrates
with DacRstone's definition Of murderY He held that
theI not. In the decision 10 McCann's it
stated by the Judge that to constitute the crime Of muir
der the will must Join with the act In this did the
will join With the act Mr. sickes, at the time Of
the homicide, such mere creature OF INSTINCT Of impulse
that be could not reset but carried forward like
machine, the oonsummaiion OF that called
gedyY II may be tragcal to- shed human blood; but I
ss biz s tragedy a%ay s
ter OF the occurrence The aduterer dies as justly
% 'hoae ,v men S ded who vers executed within
They were condemned by law. What was their offence
They had shed human blood. 1t was no higher than the
oe,ce of this deceased, for he turned the divine
iuton marriage created and reared by the hand Of
heAlmehy. Counsel understood the rule to be that
where the prosecution proved the declaration Of prisoner
that declaration held 10 be true till hsTas proved TO
be fasc The declar by the prisonsr here tha
Key tsdeqed bs bed, and that unaer The influence O.
70 show 1as Kephadh ~ pouted the wife cr Dapssi T.
or bad they thrown themselves juryY ConcedDg that
that the reason Of the act II would put speedy
period to this nvests alton 10 admit that that the
TACT slbm, said he, that that is found law aud that
the proved in this case that Philip Barton Key
seduced the wife Of Daniel sickles aud that for that
transport Of frenzy, Daniel Sickles sent him TO his
long account That is the way the stands before
this jury. We might therefore, submit this case TO the
Jury the testimony II STANDS; for the rule is
well settled that declaration of prisoner, when proved
by the prosecutions is held true until the has
|
was the secret Of learned friends ingenuity Is
| Daniel E Sickes TO be fitted and cut into a
Of the truth and that part Of The TRUTH is it the
morality OF this that stand in this court TO await
the action Of this juryS How would you feel If the law
could tie handkerchief on your eyes and compel you to
render verdict when your facilities not
convincecs There no such duty exacted from you
this occasion. The prosecution started in slough The
defence is not bound 10 show the adultery, although II
could place before the jury 10 It's most disgusting details
| friend
of Daniel +. sckes, and that he dehowered the
confidence Of his own friend. His wns eooble
| crime. The treachery Of friend Is bad enough but
when that perhdy reached the wife il became dOubly
damned. believe in the maxime mort,is nil is bonun'
Speak not of the dead except you mention them favor
aby) 1t is said that 'tho evil that do lives after
them; the good Is oft inferred with their bones That
saying verified here; but is brought into This
for tie purpose Of aspersng the memory Of the deceased
grstuitousy would leave him where he slumbee; but
as be IS fact in the case and as bis conduct is fact in
the case necessary that should be There
is duty here TO be performed to tho living. This brings
me to the third question: which is, the Nervousness OF
the crime of adultery and how the law esteems 1t as
provocaton and how 1t CARDS it In connection with
act caused by it. If respass too long the patience
for have no pride to CRAFTY here can accomplish
the delivery Of my friend the OF my gratidca.
tion viii be not only fun, but overrunnng II havo
ambon is net the incentive to my action this
sion. will consider, first, the Nervousness Of adultery,
as declared by the Bible and second estimated by the
fall upon ADAM and took Of his ribs and from made
woman He brought her unto Adam
And Adam said This Is bone os my bones and flesh
OF my flesh she shall be called Woman because she taken
out uf man.
Therefore shall leave bis father and his mother a,d
shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall iesh
The Saviour when in the Of Judea, used almot
the same language, when the Pharisees sought to tempt
him on the subject Of divorcement:-
wherefore they more twain, but one flesh. What
therefore, cd hath joined together let put
When Abraham went into Egypt account of the fa-
mne Sarai, his wife, passed his sister. He feared
death on her account The princes Of Pharoah saw her
and commenced her 10 Pharaoh and she was taken into
his house. The Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house
with exceeding great plaques
And Pharaoh called Abram and said What this thou
hast done unto mes why ddst thou tell that thy
wlfeY
Why ssids thou She sister, might have taken her
70 me to wife therefore, behoi thy wife, take her and
thy way.
so when Abraham soiourned in Gcrar Sarah passed
his sister, and Abmelech the king sent and took her.
But God 10 Abmelech dream by eht and said
him Behold, hou but dead man. for the woman which
thou bns, tab she IL "A w