Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1859-04-18
THE SICKLES TRIAL.


day read the record of her mothers shame,
that the confession of Mrs. Sickles was pub
lished. The publication was contrary to his
wishes, and ii it had been within his power,
he would have suppressed it
The Court opened at the usual hour, and
with the usual crowd in attendance. The ar
gument on the question of admissibility of ev-
idence of adultery was pretermitted for the
present, in order to allow Peter Cagger of AL
bany, to be examined, he being DESTROYS to re-
turn home this afternoon.
Peter Cagger, examined by Mr.. Brady-I
am member of the bar, residing in the city
of Albany. Have known Mr.. Sickles twelve
years and upwards. Saw Mr.. Key but once
in june 1858, was introduced to him by let
ter from Mr.. Sickles, and engaged him in
case counsel
To the Court retained Mr.. Keys services
on the ground of that letter of introduction.
Not cross-examined.
Mr.. Phillips resumed his argument. He had
discussed yesterday the following propositions;
l. That if the evidence offered is admissible
for any purpose, it must be received.
2. That the issue presented by the indict-
ment is not whether there has been killing,
but whether there has been a murder.
3. That to constitute murder, there must be
established killing with deliberate intent or
malice prepense-
4. That the malice of the law implied a
wicked, depraved, and malignant spirit, a
heart regardless of social duty, and fatally bent
on mischief.
s. That even in cases of express malice aris-
ing out Of past grudge, if there has inter-
Vened new proVocation, it was not to be pre-
Sumed that the killing was on the old grudge.
6. That in cases where the law presumes
malice from the act of killing, this presump-
ton may be rebutted by expressions of good
will and acts of kindness on the part of the
prisoner towards the deceased, always consid-
cred important evidence as showing what was
his general disposition towards the deceased.
He now went on -
T. AS the law declares adultery to be the
greatest OF all provocations, there could be no
such legal absurdity as permitting evidence of
the lesser proyocation and excluding evidence
of the greater.
3. The prosecution admits that if the accus-
ed had seen with his own eyes the act of adul-
terry, the provOcation could be given in evil
dence. But it is unreasonable and tallacious to
say that knowledge of adultery at the time of
its commission could not be conveyed to the
mind otherwise than by the eye. He sup
posed cases, and said he might suppose the
case of a blind man. Suppose husband find
the adulterer quiescent in his wite's bed or
clothing himself in his wife's bedroom; could
District Attorney do not know as there
is any well defined line in this matter
Mr.. Phillips-There is no reason for this
rule in the nature of things. The adulterer
aims to shield himself from detection. And,
besides, if the husband should find the
parties in the act how is it to be prov
ed9 The adulterer's tongue is palsied :
the wife's tongue is silenced by the law;
and the prisoner cannot give evidence in
his own case, 1t is not therefore mere wit
ness of the fact but knowledge of it, that stirs
the human passions and ashes them into fury
and if the aduterer is killed in the transport of
passion thus aroused, the law, which is rule
for the government of man, has regard to the
frailties which hang around the human heart
The most liberal Interpretation of the law does
not require that the killing should be concur
rent with the act of adultery. To convict a
man Of the crime of adultery, it is not requir-
ed that the witnesses shall have seen the act
and it reverseS our notions of law and of the
principles of humanity to demand that the ev-
ldence which convnces a husband shall be
greater than that necessary to convince jury
of twelve deliberate and impartial men. In
the North Carolina case, the slave John had
legally no marital rights the re being no such
rights recognized between slaves, there could
be no adultery. But the counsel on the other
side lind said there was no distinction in law
between slaves and freemen.
Mr.. Carlisle.-Oh, no, | did not say that
There are local laws affecting slaves.
Mr.. Phillips.-I supposed the gentleman
had reference to moral principles, and will take
that to be the case And is there no difference
OF feeling between the case of a white man
whose marital rights are recognized by law
and society, and that of black man who has
no marital rights The very statement itself
e 20 eba,. ~ -
the proyocation, or the prosecution may tell
the jury the passion was feigned. If there
was a right to show the passion, there was also
a right to show the provocation. Why, few
minutes before the homicide was committed
the flag of the adulterer was floating in the
very eyes of the prisoner! This was a new
provOcation, sufficient to justify the homicide
Mr.. F., in concluding his argument said the
Judge was required not to make new rule,
but to apply the analoges of law to new facts
and circumstances.
Mr. Graham followed Mr.. Phillips in a long
argument on the same points, in the course of
which he defined the difference between the
rule by which he would justify Mr.. Sickles,
and that of the "higher law fanatics" as fol
lows =
can effort has been made to satisfy the
Court that we are trying throw this defense
back on what is odiously called the "Higher
Law" The origin of that term is perfectly
well known to all of us. 1t originated with
certain fanatics, who, to accomplish political
ends, would subvert the structure of our gov
ernment So far as any odium is sought to
be thrown on this defence by identifying it
with that doctrine, we disown connection with
those words. But say that, as in the case of
individuals, so it is in the case of communities.
They like individuals are required to take the
administration of law into their own hands and
administer it for their own benefit, when
those who have been entrusted with its admin
istratton have not been true to the duties i'm
posed on them. The Vigilence Commute of
San Francisco was a case in point"
MIR. Uuld replied for tho prosecution He
maintained that the rule required the exclu-
sion of such evidence as the defense sought to
introduce. The grounds on which application
for it were made, were First, that the facts
recited amount to justification; Second that
they amount to legal provocaton; Third, that
they are competent evidence in connection
with the question of insanity and, finally,
that they are competent evidence to explain
the statement of the prisoner at the time of
the homicide, and the motives and feelings by
which he was actuated.
The first two grounds presented questions
strictly legal. The established rule of law was
that the only legal proyocation or justification
was discovery of the parties in the act; and
this merely reduced the killing from murder
to manslaughter The rule was so strict that
if the husband should see the act at a distance,
through a telescope, and afterwards Stay the
adulterer, he would be held guilty of murder.
If the rule should be extended as the defense
require, so that ordinary lust should legally ex-
pose man to be slain as an adulterer, what
would be the condition of society? 1t snot
the part of the prosecution to defend adultery !;