Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1859-04-15
Trial of Hon Daniel L Sicklcs,
MrnNEspAY's rRocrEnlNas-coNc


After tho Court hud finished the read
ing of Mira, Sicklcs confession, Mr. Ould
then went to say, that it seemed
thut the evidence proposed to bc offered were in
dispuahlc on many grounds. 1t struck Mt the car
dinnl principles OF the rules of evidence. Ii was
but hoaring. II was not on y Objectionable in this
respect, but ns II communication between parties
whosc relations were those of husband and wife,
it would bc the holding Of the Inv to exclude it.
The law WAS that the testimony Of the wife could
not he taken either for or against the husband nor
TINT oi the husband for ur against the wife 10
seemed to him that on both of these principles this
evidence was Objectionable. The speaker under
stood hat this evidence was. not now offered ns n
ground "t justification. while tho fact it contained
would make for the rcused, but to shcw tho mon
tai status OF the party now on trial IL was already
not evidence in justification. All the evidence in.
rouccd T." the Jury ought to have some logical
connection. 1t wa' evidence only when the par
ties we're taken in the net of adultery aud then on
~ us II justification to reduce tho crime from muir
der to mansaughter. The means tlnt produced
insanity were nmatcrinl. The true question was
whether the party was really insane or not. 1t
was by no means necessary. that by the receipt
of such II communication, the party thrown
into u condition of mental insanity. Tho true
question was. what was tho condition Of Sick
les mind Mt the time ho received the commune
cniion-nna subsequently, upon no ground could
this paper be given to the jury to show even
the mcnnl condition Of the accused. because it
proved nothing directly showing tho state of his
mind
Mr. Graham replied that ho understood the mo-
tive of tho defence to DO To show n narrative by
the wife to her husband, signed by her in the pres
encc of witnesses, giving IA statement of wrongs
done to herself and husband, to show the state of
mind IF the prisoner Mt the time of the homicide
II went To add To the pressure on the mind, un-
der which he was when he committed the act.
ll,,, e Al
was evidence ior the jury to decide. 1t was
/ a matter for the nry whcI the Court would sub
nit 1T to them ~ evidence It's competency was
one thing and its effect another. Whether it was
! made with any collusiou with her husband or not
did not bear on its competency but it's effect. II
had been held that intoxicaton was not to be
given ms an excuse for the commission, when COM
mittcd under its influence. Tho defendant con-
tended that tins testimony was competent, because
it tended to show the status Of the prisoner when
he committed the alleged homicide and in fact led
! him to its commission.
Suppose wife to return home and inform her
husband that she had been insultcd in the street,
would it be conicnded that the husband wns to be
called to account Tor any act perpetrnted by him,
while under the excitement, which such a tale
would naturally giyo riso to. All the defence
wished to show that Mrs. Sick les made these
declarations in writing to supply ground for the
subsequent state Of her husbands mind, which
led to the homicide. The question whether the
ntcrrcgnum Of minute or hour. year hnd
elapsed was not sufficient to exclude tbs evidence
under tho peculiar circumstances of this case
Standing by ITSELF this paper was n mere hearsay,
but was closely connected with the circumstan-
ces as to be inscparabe from the act which fol-
lowed its receipt. WAS the prisoner to be cut and
fit into n conviction in spite of the truth? Who
lighted the flame in the heart of the accused If
this wife applied the torch to the temple of this
husbands happiness, how shall this husband suffer
when he arose upon the instincts of his nature and
committed the act for which he must receive of
the condemnation of whole world. Mr. Graham
cited the case of man found by tho body of one
whom he had killed. and whose words. on first
being approached by others. were to the fact that
he had killed the man, but it was in selfdeience
which words were recorded in the evidence.
Mr.. Oud replied that he understood that this
evidence was supposed to be given to show nsan-
ity.
Mr.. Brady replied that the defence offered these
statements to show that it produced the state of
mind of the prisoner under which he committed
the homicide.
After further argument, the court adjourned.
-
A BAcHELoR's WoEs.-What n pitiful thing
old bachelor is, with his cheerless house and rueful
phiz, on n bitter cold night when the fierce winds
blow, and the earth is covered with foot OF snow.
When the fire is out and in shiyerng dread he
slips beneath the sheets of his lonely bed; how he
draws up his toes, still encased in yard hose, and
bures his nose meath the chilly bed clothes, that
his nose and his toes. still encased in yarn hoes
may not DO froze. Then he puffs and blows, and
swears that he knows mortal on earth ever
suffered suoh woes, and aha and oh's, and with
limbs nearly froze' to his slumber in silence he
goes. In the morn when the cock crows, and the
SUMS just rose, from meath the bed clothes pckes
the bachelors nose, and as you may suppose he
haor tha uiudh nd ha ha NJ all