New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-04-27
NEW YORK DAILY TRIBUNE WEDNESDAY, APRIL g. 1859

ated to maDslsughtrr. except there WAS an oct Of
assault nnde or mans peson property, and especi
ally 70 where the slayer might resort TO the of
deadly weapon. Bui there is not a solitary case
before Manning time where The slayer resortei
to deadly weapon. except where an assault
had been committed on his person property,
that the Offcnsc has been reduced from nur-
der to man-laughtcr. The why this question
never before reported in the books tina; up to
the time Of Henry Will, there distiDc-
ton between murder and manslaughter Both
clergiable offenses, aud up TO the time Of Charles
H. 10 case came before Court for adjudication.
What did the common law say to the Judges who
denied the princ lie That technically and strictly
IL cuse Of murder, although the party
cGught in the act But the common law
doubtedly meant to alleviate from murder to man
slaughter III Of assault persons and property.
Twden in adopting the rule, alleviated to this extent
and 10 that extent 1t has been recognized in the
mon law The learned gentlemen the other side
mistake when they say this rule with regard TO adul
teIy had IT. origin IL a corrupt age-not only was
merciu Interpretation given 10 the principle but
wa carried Till farther because the Judge orderedhe
punishment Of Manning to be administered gently.
Ii il not my purpose to defend the English Judiciary,
but ] do say that the history OF the English people
shows that it, judiciary has their great buwark
The judiciary there established with solitary excep
ton which starts up here and there in its inquity has
stood for centuries il were, ike an Arsrat of the
Deluge, the as, point that submerged beneath the
waves Of tyranny and corruption being the first that
lifted Itself in the light of day. material question IL
whether the rule then and there adopted has been
cOitOfIncd 10 Dy subsequent interpretations Inc
rosccutOu has challenged the other side to show
solitary English case where II was questioned. Tine
reports which have come to Us, show that where
they have come up for judicial Interpretation, the
same doctrines announced by Reynolds IN his re-
ports, have been approved; that before learned
and humane bench in li4j, when an analogous
case came mp, the rule was approved. lie
referred 10 Fishers case, also TO that OF Nelly,
where the same bench announced the same doctrine;
also To Pierce case where Rafc announced the
doctrine. If it be 80 beDOus doctrine repuguant
to the human heart, the learned able and humane
Judge would not have travelled ont Of his way to give
il his express ApprObation although in the case Of
c0urtezaD the learned Judge went further IN hs opin-
ion, and said: Z" would be iase to my duty were |
not to say even if the party were wife, and should
have committed adultery, and been slain by her hus
band il would have been murder Other authorities
have been already referred to- which have occurred In
the judicial experience of American Conrts, and two
cases, particularly, in North Carolina vol =, lrede and
vol. 8 JOncs) One Of the learned gentlemen denied
the application of the in vol y ircdell, because
il was the of Il slave In carefully reading, how
ever, il will be the learned Judge does
not put the law on any such footing. what
ever the peculiar relations growing ont OF Slave
~ il did not, in his opinion, affect the merits OF
the case. II stood distinct principle, and was
treated standing on the principle OF husband and
wife and the law is there set down with cearness ana
fathulness. The 81 Jones was not liable tn the
objection. He says, there evidence of dehbera-
ton and express malice. What was the evidence of
express malice in that case! In that case the time
utes Nay more, the man had gone off with his wife.
i'm his company About the time there had been
repeated acts OF adultery and the husband was smart
ING under the wrong and outrage. After seeing his wife
90 of with the adulterer, he pursued him with
wooden malet and then and there slew him. ask,
wheherthe ease put here by the defense far de-
liberation goesiar beyond the case OF Jones
II is admitted by the other side, that the proyocaon
existed in the prisoners mind longer than twenty-five
minutes or that number of hours and so far, there
fore ~ proof delberation is concerned the present
case presents features which would justify the judg
ment of the law a. announced in that spirit more fully
than the facts in this case would warrant. Another
case has been quoted or twice-ByOns case in
% Wheeler: there il not single principle OF law,
as announced by the Judge that Is disputed by this
prosecution; and when he Mr. Oud) should have the
privilege Of seeing the book, he would show the
Court that the Judge distinctly put the case on the
true and identical privilege claimed by the prosection
in this ease.
The hour of 3 had now arrived, and Mr.. Ould had
not concluded
The jury were escorted to the hotel under charge
of a special baif the prisoner remanded, and the
Cont adjourned