New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-04-16
Is. the, do 40. .sckl. At little ,elfsul. 6c.tio.

f,e, they do not sickle st lttle self-susocsf
TIE course Of TIE trial begirs to make evidess the
real otjec! which Mr.. Graham had in view 10
the new grousd which lie took up 81 the
close Of his opening. IL was not With the
IDEA OF proving Mr.. Sickles TO hsve been
ipsspe when the at was coDu.ltted (ot whicn
t,ere does not appear 10 be particle OF e'eeocel
that this eefense Of insanity WAS set up, but IS
means Of getting in under this cover, evidence ol
the ,iulttry Of kind which, if ofered directly Tor
TIA, purpose, would not be admissible. TIE proof
of the adultery, upon which Mr.. Sickles acted, and
which, in tie mind Of the public, fully establishes
tina, pont, was the confession of bis wife-s docu'
ment we may observe by the wss, which, ta'ugn
stated TO have bsen her sole set bears on the lace
of if the mark, Of being made up Of the answers
! to q series Of questions addressed to her oy he'
| husband, the answers being written down. Us II
common in reporting testimony, without tue ques'
,ion,. These answers Of Mrs. Sickles gave s'guih-
canoe TO lumber Of other facts which have been
or which are to be put into the case suc' a' soe
| LINGERING Of Key about Lafayette square, the
shaking Of his handkerchief, and his visiting TIE
hons. in Fifteenth. street, in company With fcnse,
whom il does not seem possible TO identity by white
testimony as having been M's sichles, the evidence
being confined to resemblance in dress aud the.
hhely to be excluded by the Court. Hence, to
make out the guile of Key clearly as to briug the
killing OF him within the do,trine that adultery jas
tifes homicide, ard fully to secure the sympathy Of
the Jury on that point, 1t was highly desirable 10
get this confession of Mrs. Sickles into the case
at least, if rot legally into it, substantially Sew
era formidable obstacles stood in the WAY Of using
this confession directly to prove the adultery.
In the frat place, it was the offer to
put into tie case an unsworn eI parte
statement by witness, instead Of &C.
tually producing that witness on the stand.
The questions which had been put to Mrs.
Sckles, ard of the answers to which her state
melt seems to be made up, had been strictly limited
to certain points. HAD Mrs Sickles been subjected
to cross xsminshOn, macy other Pc nts might
have been brought out, which mig have m,terisly
modified the impression likely to be made by her
statement. But TO examine Mrs. Slckles So .
witness contrary to an established rule of law,
which forbids wife to be in any case witness for
Ter husband and only allows her, in certain special
cases. to be a witness against him. Moreover, to
have offered the confession for the syoRed purpose
of prosipg the adultery, would at once have
raise the question, which the defendants counsel
are in no hurry to meet whether, in abigail point Of
view, adultery is justification of homicide, and
whether any evidence at all can be admitted in order
to prove that point The counsel for the defence
much prefer to get in al their evidence of the
adultery under some other cover before meeting
the question, whether adultery can be set up as
defense, and under that cover, TOO, to get in evil
dence to prove the adultery, which would not be
directly admissible for that purpose, even should
the Court decide which is not very likely, that
they have right TO set up that defense. The
case of Mr. Woodbridge is another instance OF this.
For the purpose of directly proving the adultery,
his testimony would not be admissible. lie
raw nothing himself but collected such informa-
ton as be had from conversations with
others. Neither could the facts thus communicated
be proved directly by those to whom Mr.. Wool
bridge was indebted for his informatioD they being
colored people, who, by the laws Of the District,
cannot testify. To get over this difficulty, the
counsel propose that Mr. Woodbridge anali be
allowed to tell the Jury what be told Slckles-not
for the purpose Of getting the result Of his inses-
cations before the Jury-ob, no, not at al-but as
going to prove that Sichles was crazy when he
killed Key, Mr.. Wooldndge's commun cation being
Of q character TO make a man crazy. Ina ease
where q Member Of Congress was on trial for muir
der, and the party murdered had been only poor
Irish waiter, q contryarce of this sort might
have easily passed muster; but it is quite different
in case hike this The Jury can, aud doubtless
will, do what they please, but the prosecuting
counsel, and the Judge on the bench, are Con-
strained to adhere to the strict rules of law.
II seems TO US, however, as if the council for
the defen,e we're pushing this 6ne,se of theirs q
little too far. When they reprosch the counsel for
the prosecution, and, over their shoulders, the
Judge (since be has sustained every position which
they have taken), with thirsting for the prisoners
blood, because on question of insanity, they DO
not fall into this new idea Of receiving evidence
not tina. man was insane, but that be ought to-
have bsen-it seems as if they were dangerously
eleyatirg this question of insanity from mere
opeBir for the real defense relied upon into that
defense itself II does not seem judicious to im-
pres, the Jury with the idea that Mr. Sickes can
be saved from TIE gallOws only BY establishing the
fact of his insanity.