Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1859-04-26

Il
feiiI vs. the State, In 18th Alabama Reports, 20
70 the case Of the Commonwealth agt. Mosler
/ quoted in 4th Barr
| 1.-THE court here stated that Judge Gibson, who
presided over the latter case was of the great
est Judges he had ever known.1 =
Also, to the case Of Mechan agt. the State, ia
10Th Georgia Reports; the case Of the State act
whiteford, In 7th Randolph, page 72I: also n,
State agt. Hildred, in 9th lredefl, 49 and Others
He had referred to various authorities in othe,
states, and would next refer to one recognized az
| supreme authority in this District 18th Cranch
ST. wherein it is laid down that the ripht of The
jury 10 decide the law we'll as the fact h, mo,
greater In criminal cases than In civil cases The
| effect only 10 different. as Mr. o. Proceeded h
show by reading the said ruling of Judge Dunlop.
| IN the case of Stettenus. MIR. O. next referred Ia
| the decisions OF Chief Justice Story red Sumner d
I'D wherein Il is held that in capital or other
criminal cases the jury are no more judges Of the
law than In civil cases tried the general issues
| They had no moral right to decide the law ac-
1 cording to their inclinations
IL Is the duty Of the court to instruct the iurv
and that Of the jury to follow that instruction.
Otherwise there would be no safety for the citi
zens, nor anything settled in law. SO said Story,
as MI; U; quoted at length This court (yndge
| Crawford) had itself decided this point, when a
| former District Attorney not being satisfied with
an instruction laid down, had essayed TO argue IL
70 the Jury not being sound law, when the court
The Court remembered the case. In It he
had allowed the presentation to him of counter
Instructions for his decision however.
BRADY stated That II was a little remarkable
that neither Judge Shaw nor Judge Story in Law
ing down that principle had stated the principle
GA which IL was founded. The pardoning power
had been given to the President to keep both
court and jury within their respective functions
and alsoto prevent justice from being outraged by
law.
Mr. o. here referred to Sd of Story's Commenta-
rles. p. 345, wherein it was held that i'm cases
where the law contictcd with Justice the pardon
ing power happily afforded the remedy
II was the function and duty of the Executive
only, not of the Court or jury to step beyond the
law In such case. A pistol in this case had been
found, and MIR. Brady had inquired in his argu-
ment whose it was. Ii was not for him MIR D }
to answer. The witnesses Van Wyck and Reed,
saw pistol in Sickles's hand Just at the spot
where Sickles stood, and testified that at no time
during the fray had Key pistol in his hands. Did
IL belong To him who used pistol in the FRAY. or
HIM proved not to have had one in it, He would
LIT the testimony say whose IL was
LATER.-SECOND EDITION.
The defence had urged that the prosecution
should have shown that Key was not i'm the habit
of going armed. No proof that such was his
habit had been adduced, and it was not the duty
OF the prosecution TO prove negative.
Brady. Had alleged the fact
Ould. That Is not proof however Why had
Butterworth not been brought forward by the de-
fence to testify on that point! Surely he knew
whose pistol it was. Yet the defence had not
quoted the case of the United States vs. Mingo, in
Curtis's Reports.
Brady. It had been ruled in that case that when
the circumstances of the killing were left in douht
it was the duty Of the jury to acquit
Ould. In the case OF 1 igo, it was one of mu-
tIal combat, both parties being armed. In this
Use both Messrs. Brady and Stanton had declared
Sickles' Intention to kill Key, and had urge as
] stlhcation the alleged adultery. The cooling
time only applied to cases of mutual combat not
to one like this, wherein there was mutual COM
bat. He had heard nothing in the defence q arpu-
ment of denial of Sickles' intention to kill2on
the contrary it was avowed and eSsayed to be ius-
titled. The intention to kill clearly means malice
The plea that Sickles proclaimed that key had
denied his bed, showed that there was malice as
had been urged. His Immediately following ex-
clamation, els the damned villain dead!'' also
most conclusively showed malice.
Mr.. Brady had said if he could put Kew on the
stand he (K.) would have said SO and So HeI o.
would to God Key could have been put on the
sttnd ifso, much that had been slid even i'm the
evidence for the defence might have been dis
proved. His (Key's) lips are sealed in DEATH and
cinnot summon facts and witnesses in his defence;
he might be able to show that he himself was the
seduced by repeated temptations until the high
way.
Ms. Brady. We offered to prove that he said
Mrs Sickles was d mere child, and stood in that
relation to him.
Mr.. Ould (after the Court and Jury took short
recess) referred, on the point of insanity to the
opinion OF the twelve judges to the Parliament of
England, on the case Of the acquittal of McNaug-
teI-a recent One-and particularly to that of
Chief Justice TiBdall, q monument of judicial
wisdom and good taste T. had said that i'm cases
OF crimes committed by persons insane one
point TO redress alleged Wrongs To themselves the
perPetratOr is punishable if ne knew that Ire was
acting contrary TO law-the law of the land said
Mr. %, not higher law new law
Judge linda had in all these answers held that
Ia all cases the insanity must be clearly proved to
have so existed from disease of mind a, not to
know that he was violating law to be Of avail i'm
his defence And further, that actual knowl-
edge OF the law the part of the accused was not
necessary as he was presumed to know the law
Judge L. had furthcred answered that if acting
under delusion that one is seeking to take his life
aud he Kills under it. he is not punishable but If
the delusiOn be on any other point, and he takes
life, he is clearly punishable.
Mr.. D. next quoted 18th Missouri Reports-
Preston agt the State-wheren it is ruled that vi
otent excitement or passion is no Justification;
also, the case Of the State agt Starke LIST Stroble
49, where il is held that the jury must be satisfied
OF the actual insanity Of the prisoner when CON-
uniting the act, to acquit on that plea; also from
Chief Justice HornblOwer's opinion in Spencer's
else, (Wharton's American Criminal Law page
7i2 wherein IL is held that if the jury doubts the
case turns on that plea The evidence of insanity
al the time OF committing the act to acquit the
prisoner should be as strong TO acquit the prisoner
as the proof OF committing the act to convict him
for IT. So Hofnblower had ruled.
The law held that man must he regarded sane
until proved insane, else il would he incumbent
on the part Of the United States to prove the sanity
of every party. The law holds a party innocent
until proved guilty; and also that the burden of
proof of insanity was on the defence So this
court had decided. The plea of insanity was in
the nature of special defence, and of confession
and avoidance In the case Of that plea is il not
clearly the duty Of the defence TO prove il,
In suit against married woman and the case
turns on that question, if she fails TO prove that
fact she loses the Cause.-The issues Of both law and
fact are found against her. On this so well recog-
nized rule the principle is applicable here Where
the fact Of the killing is admitted the principle in
issue is precisely like that Of plea Of confession
and avoidance in a civil case. He would saw
nothing to the point Of the opportunities To get up
feigned testimony in OF pleas Of insanity
greatly damaging the interests Of society, which
IL was tue duty of this Court to guard against
There was really no possibility that one really
proved insane would be convicted The sympathies
OF the human breast were too strong for that and
1t was the Courts province to protect the general
interests of society against the injurious effects OF
the triumphs Of stimulation Of insanity in such
cases.
MI. Sickles, soon after the close Of Mr. Guilds
speech, returned into the courtroom, from which
lac had been absent for half an hour
The Court then went on TO give the jury the in
stTuctiOns:
After reading the first instruction, which is as
follows:
I. IL the jury believe from the whole evidence in
this cause, that the prisoner, the day named In