New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-04-18
TRIAL OF DANIEL E. SICKLES,
CHARGED WITH THE
MURDER OF PHILIP BARTON KEY.
TWELFTH DAYS PROCEEDINGS.

OF Mn. Sekles was Published. The publication ~ss
contrary to hi, wishes, ard ii it hsd been within his
power he would have suppressed it.
The Court opened at the usual hour, AMI with the
ususl crowd in sttepdsree.
I The argument on the question Of the a1missibl'y
of evidence Of adultery was preermtei for the pres
EFT, in order 10 allow Peter Caseer Of Albany to be
examined, he being DESTROYS to return home this
/ afternoon.
Peter Csgger examined by Mr.. Brady-I am usn-
Der of the Bar rssiding in the City Vf Albany; have
Known hr. Sckles tEelve years sud upsart; saw
Mr.. Key but once, in Jane lS,S; WAS introduced TO
him by letter from Mr.. Sickes, and engaged him in
/ cause ss counsel.
To the Cour.-I retained Mr.. Keys services on the
| ground Of that letter of introduction.
! Net cross-examired.
Mr. Oulo would Ike TO refer the co 1nsel for the de-
feI Sc TO one or two additional authorities laird Vol.
ume, Jones Law Reports. The Safe sgt Reuben
Samuel; The State sgt. Joan p. Creighton, c. Iede
p "a. The State sgt. John G. Ferguson; HUI South
Carolina Reports, gage GIG.
/ Dir. Philips resumed bis argument. He had dis
cu.,ed yesterday the following propositions:
Frs, That if the evidence offered is admissible Tor
/ any purpose il must be received.
Second That the ssue presented by the indictment
lie rot whether there has been killing, but whether
/ there has been murder.
ThWd. That 70 constitute murder, there must be
established killing with deliberate INTENT or malice
I prepepse.
/ Fourth Thst the malice Of the law implied wick
ed, depTaved, and Malignant spirit heart regardless
| of social duty, and fatally bent on mischief
Fifth That even in cases OF express malice, aris-
ing out of pact grudse if there has iuterveuei new
pIovooatiOn, il was not 10 be presumed the killing
on the old grudge.
/ Sirth That in csses where the law presumes
lice from the act OF killing, this presumption may be
rebutted by expressions Of good viii and ac's OF kind
the part Of the prisoner toward the deceased
always oonsdersd important evidence as shoSing
bis general disDOeltiOn toward the deceased
fr which the jury may be led to conclude that hls
intention could net have been whs. the charge i'm
pu-es.
tion may aeo be rebuttei by showing that the killing
was passion for passion arising from sufficient pro-
vocation Ia evidence Of the absence OF malice
Quoting from tue Commonwealth against Bell, page
Serfah That as the law declares adultery to be
the create of all pTOyoc6tons, there could be no
such eg.l sbsurdlty as permitting evidence OF the
lesser pIoyocatiOn ard excluolns esicenee OF the
greater.
Eigtth: This brought to the consideration of
the sdmiss OF the prosecution, tnst II the accused
bad seen with his own eyes the very act OF adultery,
then the provocaop given could DO given in evidence,
bet L other1ise This | demonstrate 10 be wholly
unreasonable and faacous, by showing that the eye,
the ear and the touch were but media through which
f. It's were transmitted TO the BRAIN aud tast tas
governed the will and decided the action. was Illus
trtfns the position that the kno Wedge of the adultery
at the time of It's commission could DO as definitely
conveyed to the mind by the ear or tne
touch as by the eye and cited examples To this end
when the adjournment of the Court took place. He
had Yesterday presented Gaze in Illustration OF the
fssty and ebsardty of the doctrine that man must
the act of adultery TO entie him to set it up ia jus.
tlcatiOn. lie might also illustrate the idea by
the case OF blind man. lie mad seen picture Of DO
garths repre- senng scene at an English hastings
where cd man with the SHOWS of macy Wloters on
his head, and without his right arm which he had lost
in the service cf his country came up TO vote. The
old man challenged, and the Judge declared that
irssmuch as tue form Of the cath required the
p.Tson taking IT, TO place his right hand on tho book,
and that this man rad no right hand, ne not
o competent voter. That doctrine was about as ab
surd the doctrine laid down by the persecution thai
tie husband must tui tue sduterer the very ac..
Suppose husband found the adulterer in his wfe's
bed state Of quieseI &c, or found him disIobiug
clothing hmself ia the bedroom OF MS wife, woal II
be held that that fact would not be- legal justifea-
tou
TIE District Attorney did rot know that there was
any weLdeiIed line in this matter.
Mr.. Phillips replied that there was no reason for
tlis ge, in the nature Of things it would be mpos
sble TO make the proof and where the reason of the
les does rot apply the Law itsef Is at an end. Dad
not tie aduterer invariably endeagor to shield himself
from detection Besides, if the husbsOd did fad the
parties in the act, how was it to be proved The
tongue Of the adulerer s paisied the tongue Of tue
wife is sleuced by the law and the prisoner Cannot
give evidence in bis own cause. 1t was not, there
fore, the mere witnessing of the fac, but the kooR
edge Of II, h0seyer derived, which s1rs the human |
odDteier is hi ed in the transport of passion /
taus srouted, the law which is rule for tne |
government Of man, has regard for the hailties !
which harg around the human heart. The |
most liberal Interpretation Of the law does not re-
quire that the kill g should be concurrent VITA the
act OF adultery. Counsel referred TO st Russell psges
10 10 to chow that though the killing may be suisse
queIt yet it will rot be murder, il not done delib.
eratey and upon revenge. Counsel also discussed the
Gaze # Manning, on which he said this prosecution
entirely rested, and even there the Judges unsni.
mou-y declared that the killing was but manslauSh
ter and the prisoner having cl.rgy az the bar, tie
vas that he be burned ia the hand, and the
Court directed the e1ecOtODer TO burn the Dend very
slightly adultery the greatest provoc stCn that
man could receive end 700 much for him TO bear
With view OF testing this mater SAL further, sap
pC tney were to convert this ldlc al re5oulOn OF
the Judge, il Warnings case nso statute against
eduheIy, That any person found IN the act should
suffer such and such punishment, and, If person
were inc ted uncer that statute what amount Of evil
deIce be would ask would be sutf ;ent TO con-
vince the jury that the ofsnso had been committed
" ould il be iCr moment contended that the wit
resaes must testify 10 seeing the very act itself
The statute o. Massachusetts, declared ihat any party
wno hac been guilty OF the crime Of adultery should
suffer go ara So and there what evidence was neces-
ssry 10 oLvict nan uncer IL lie would read soms
Of The decisions there. Council referred 10 tue case
Of the Commonwealth We. Norris lat vol Cushing,
D. 80 "a and ssO 70 vol IL Plckeriog, p. SIS Ia tue
case Of the Common wealth agt. Mern0D. the rule
v is tne same in other States, ard Ia the Euglish
CouTts. BE referred 10 the case o. the State sgt.
W sIlace n. III: Reports), aud To case il Aisbams.
lie also referred 10 the opinion OF LORD Stowel VOL
lreeLlcal EyideLce where It 10 declared tnat u Is
rot necessary 10 prove the fsct Of adotery, bat IN
prove an IA fscjs As led 10 Tho inevitable inference that
he feYse lad teen committed. The circumstances
us he tuch & lest The guarded opinion OF dig
Greet man TO sGch conclusion. Counsel would AJAX
ether he kDo=ledye on the part Of the husband OF
TIE adultery required % be greater AMI more con-