The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1859-04-25
Il r. I AL OF
ID ANIEL e. SICKLES
FOR THE MURDER OF
L. BARTON KEY.
WAsniNaroN, April q, 1889

teldsaee oi spectators. The court room was cold
aud damp.
Ex-senator Brodhea3 appeared by the side OF
tie counsel.
By the consent of court and counsel, three lets
teTs were delivered to Mr.. W. @. Harper aud James
| l. DAVIS, Iufola.
MIR. Casi Isle lin the absence of MIR. 0uld) stated
that ex-senator Brodhoad was in attendance, and
explained that the gentiemans non-attendanee
heretofore, was owing to subpoena being served
on him on the 7th Of April, for his attendance on
the ath.
The court was glad to hear this, and knew
there mus be good reason for his nonsattend'
ance.
! Hon. Richard H. Brodhead then testified to being
In this city the day OF the homicide, and, While
walking out with his friend, X. j. Haldenlan, oi
Harrisburg, it was proposed that they go 10 and
see Judge Black; il was agreed 10, ana We we're
shown into the back parior. We had set there but
| a few moments on the sofa, when Mr. Sickles en'
tered; witness knew him, but not intimately; ins
troduced Mr. Sckies to Mr. Haldeman, and
they commenced conversation on the politics OF
New York.aud Pennsylvania; it was briei; "hen 1t
ended. witness noticed mud on the snoes OF
Sir. Sckies, and remarked to MIN that ne nao
i been unfortunate on the street crossings. -
We heard footsteps on the stairs, ana Mr. C. Went
out if to meet the person; in lie" moments
Judge Black came in very much eAelteo' Mf. eic'
kles entered through the fJiding ooors oi the
back pa, lor, and, none OF his New Aork Hiends
had vet arrived, we rendered our services to ac'
| company him to this magistrate; one oI US ASA
| ed II 1t was q bailable offence; Mr. .. repneu ne
thought not but added, ''if the truth were known,
| God knows would be lustihable, or Gould mol
hslp IL" which form of expression witness does
not recolIect. MIR. Gilett came III, ana also mr.
| Butterworth. Some one asked II hey was oead
Aud reply made that be was. sickies mutter-
ed that There was one wretch less IN the world
Ifa & in a with inc pOilC6 Huu
his friends and witness saw no more oil him
| MIR. Ould said as Mr.. Haideman was not here, he
would rest the case. - q
Mr., Brady said the defence would here close their
evidence.
| After some edelay-
| Mr. Carlisle read the following instructions:
First That if the july believe, from tie ~hoie
evidence of this cause, that the prisoner, on ihe
| day named in the indictment, aua IL tho county
| of Washington aforesaid, killed the Sald Phlihp
| Parton Key by di.cbarglDg at, against, ana ihIo
| the body of hin, the SAID Phillip Barton hey,
ni.toI or pistols loaded with gunpowder and ball,
| thereby giving him a mortal wound or Wodhos,
aud that such killing Was the wilfu! ana lnten-
| topal act cf the prisoner. aud was induced by
the belief that the said deceased hau seouctu his,
| the prisoners wife, and on sUme day or days, OF
for any period definite indefinite, prior 10 the
! day of such killing had adutterous Intercourse
| with the sad wife; and that the prisoner WAS not
| provoked 10 such killing by any assault or CHeI
of violence, then and there mace py the deceased
upon or against him, then such wiiful aps roten-
tional killing, if found by the jury upon all the
facts and circumstances given III evidence, Is inar-
| der. But such killing cannot be found TO nave
been wiiful and intentional, in the sense e1 TINS
| instruction, if it shall have been proved TO the
satisfaction of the jury, upon the whole evidence
aforesaid that the prisoner was IN 1acL insane III
| the time of such killing.
| Second. If the jury believe from the evidence
| that the deceased WAS killed by the prisoner by
means of Ieaden bullet, discharged from pistol
such killing implies malice in law, and Is murder
| That the burden of rebutting ~ presumption oi
malice, by showing circumstances OF aile'latiob
excpse or justification, rests on the prisoner, aud
| il ia incumbent on him to make out such cIrcuDs
| stances to the satisfaction OF the jury, unless
| they arise out of the evidence produced against
| him. That any person is presumed 10 De 0! sant
mind until the coBtrary is proved, and all burdel
of rebuttng these presumptuons rest on the priso'
Third. If the jury believe from the evidence thai
the deceased previous to the day OF his death naC
adnJterous intercourse with the wife Of the prlso'
ner; and further, that the deceased on the day o
his DEATH shortly before the prisoner had lelI hi
house. made signals inviting Il further act or act.
| of adultery, " hich said sigDRls. or a portion o.
them, were by the prisoner, and that, iltu
epced by such provocation, the prisoner took tht
life OF The deceased, such provocation does 10
justify the act reduce such Killing from nurdei
| to mansaughter.
| MIR. Brady then read the lnstructlons Ior the ce
| fence, as follows:
| FIRST There is no presumpt on of malice 10 thli
case if any proof of dicriGtiOn excuse or juStfca
tion arise out CT the evidence tor the prosecu.
tiou.
| Estate VS.. Johnson, 8 Jones, $780, Mcdaniel vs.
State, Smeads, 4Ul; Days's case, 1'o fathpn
| Second. The existence of malice not presuma
bic in this case, any rational theory cohslsteu
| with all the evidence, the homicide may be elthe
| iustifasle excusabIe or an act of granddaughter.
/ 1Salae cases as above cited U. S. VS.. Mingo,
Curtis, c. C. Il. /; Commonwealth VS.. York, Ben
| Lett aud Heads; LadiBg B Criminal case, 3Oo
| Third. If on the whole evidence presented D.
the nrosecntion there is any rational hypothesi
| consistent wi the conclusion that The homicld
was Unsuitable or excussble, the defendant canno
be convicted.
Fourth If the jury believe that Sick,es, whel
the homicile occurred, intended, TO XIII hey,
cannot be convicted Of manslaughter
Fifth. 1t is tor the jury TO determine un0er al
the circumstances OF the case whether the &C
charged upon Sickles is murder or Jusunaole nom
icide.-Ryan's case vs.. 2 Wheeler's case, 54.
Sixth If the jury find that Sickes killed ke
while the latter was in criminal intercourse viii
the wife of the former, SIckles cannotbe conVicte
of either murder or maDsiaughter.
| Seventh If, from the whole evidence, the Jur
beiieye that SickIes committed the act, but III ID
time of doing so "was under the influence OF
diseased mind, ard was really unconscious iha
be vas committing crime, he Is not, I'D law
guilty. of murder. Days case, pamphlet, page
Eighth. If the jury believe that, from any pre-
disposig cause the prisoners mind was impaire ed
) and at The time of killing hey, he became 0
was mentally incapable Of governing himself u
reference to Key as the debaucher OF his wife, abc
, | a, the time of his committing said act, was, b
, reasonSnf such cause, unconscious thst ne Wa
committing crime to said Key, be is not guilt
| of any offence whatever.-Day's case, panphie
page II.
Ninth 1t is for the jary to say what was th
state of Sckles' mind as capacity 10 decide upo
the crininalty of the particular act In queslio
1.-THE homicide) at the moment it occurred, all
what was the condition of the parties respectivel
| either ss to scufe or not at the same nomen
These are open questions for the jury, as are an
other questions that may arise upon conslderatio
Of the evidences; the whole Of which is to be take
into view by the jury.-Jarboes case, pamphie
page 20.
, Tenth The law does not require that the insar
ity which absclVes from crime should exist for an
defnite period, but only that itexst at the memeI
when the act occurred, with winch the accuse
| stands charged.
Eleventh Ii the jury have any doubt as
the case, either in reference to the homicide &
the question of insanity, Sickies should De az
quilted.
Mr. Carlisle addressed the court at some lengt
In support Of the Instructions offered by the pros
| ecutiop, and concluded at quarter to O'CLOCK
Mr. G read the proposed instruction to the Cour
| He contended that q mans mind 10 always IL
famed when in q passion, or in grief but tue faf
| that in this case the prisoner was "fnentaily III
| capable of governing himself" even ii so, IL We
no iustification of the killing, as the proposed IL
struction prayed. The instruction further sal
that he must be at the same time unconscious tht
| he was committing O crime. Ii the prisoner ha
come to the conclusion, under the Influence OF b
ibfamed passion, that it was no crime 60 XIII he.
the Court was asked in this proposed insfrnctio
| to say that the killing was lawful.
The ninth iustracton demanded OF the Cou
| to say to the jury that II they md that b
mind was free from Insanity, and that II he at u
time conceived Keys life justly forfeited to oil
; though the Law pronounces the act murder-the
the killing was Unsuitable. The dueiling code 10
| feits life under such circumstances. Thai cod
however, does not justify assassination; but pr
vides for an entirely equal and fair combat. d
G. said that he was gaid that II was going ont
vogue Those who held to it, however, were by
, mea rs justifyers OF murder
81 Mr.. Grahsm. That code does not recognize Il