The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-04-19


The Judge has just rendered decision admitting the
evidence prove the adultery It's rendition creates most
intense excitement in court 1t is difficult TO tell where
this evidence will lead TO or when the trial will close.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE-THE COURT.
WASHINGTON, April Is, 1852
The Court opened twenty minutes past ten the usual
large audience being in attendance.
Mr. sickles was afterwards brought into court.
The petit jury which had been directed 70 be attend
ance to-day had their called, and excused
from further attendance I'LL this day fortnight. This
would indicate intention the part OF the Judge
admit the evidence offered.
Counsel for the prosecution inundated with country
newspapers containing editorial In regard 10
the conduct Of this trial. They have little tme however,
to read profit by the gage suggestions therein made
true that Mr.. Sckes would have preferred not to
have his wes confession published II not true, how
ever, that the paper was obtained surreptousy and
copied without the knowledge of the counsel for the
fence has been asserted In communications
the New York papers, Neither is that 6rst
published in Washington Journal and then sent the
Associated Press. was tegraphed TO New York before
any second copy was made.
THE ARGUMENT ON THE ADMISSION OF TESTIMONY
CONTINUED.
District Attorney Ould proceeded 10 close bis ar
offered to prove the adultery. He had been
deavoring, he said, when he closed his remarks on
Saturday. chow that the facts offered in evidence the
part of the defence did not amount to legal provocaon
much less Justification and that the questions Of provo
cation, justification and cooling time mere legal
questions. He had been interrupted, politely Of course
by question from Mr. Brady, asking what were the
jury pass the Court determined the Justification and
the cooling time. 1t tho duty Of the jury be held
pass upon the facts as connected with the killing,
and to apply the law as enumerated by the Court
With reference to Justification, provocatiou aud
cooling time, the Court has ts peculiar functions
has the jury. If there other questions n the
that the fault Of the Of the incidents OF the
caee If were indicted for poisoning would the
learned claim that evidence Of provo
cation cooling time should be givens Did the law
declare that in such there could be Justification
no proyocation, cooling tme9 The jury pass
upon the truth Of the facts offered their suff
cheney In law question exclusively for the Court
the Court decided that they were sufficient in law then
the question Of their truth went before the jury but II
the Court decided that they not sufficient in law
them Of COURSE they did not before the jury
the practice of the Courts 10 pass upon provoca
ton, justification and cooling time.
The Judge-At different stage from this, however.
Mr. Brady-we utterly refuse to into any discus
the particular point before your Honor for determination
We offered TO prove habual adultery; the objection
made to that Az TO Justification, provocation and cool
ng time we propose TO be heard Al future stage in
asking the Court for instructions, and to insist
that the jury judges of the law and the facts but that
time has not arrived yet.
Mr.. Ould certainly misunderstood the arguments OF
counsel the questions OF justification, provocaton and
cooling time were not now before the Court.
Mr.. Philips-lf the evidence has tendency towards
justification that is sufficient.
The District Attorney held that had such tendency
for in law the facts amounted neither TO justification
provocaon BE referred the Court this point 10 Add
son and to rede 17s and 49, the State against John
r. Creighton. In the case cited by the other side
Manning's case-the question OF provocaiion was
before the Court and the Court there declared what
would be and what would not be provocaton. Did not
every Court Of murder necessarily decide upon
the sucenCy Of the evidence TO constitute legal provoca
tonS Undoubtedly it did Here the facts sought to be
put in evidence admitted, but the question
whether they amounted TO provocatou or justification.
The doctrine up accidentally 10 Seridges case
the effect which the law ought 10 gve and which
the jury must give, to certain questions affecting honor
ard dshoDor and there the Court decided the question
Counsel referred to vol ArchbAd's Criminal Practice
this point the Court interrupted Mr.. Oud TO have the
Grand Jury called.
The Court re ieved them from further attendance until
Mr. 0old, resumiDg, replied 10 the proposition Of Mr..
Phillips that this evidence competent for rebuttng
the question. That ne (Ouc) thought was begging the
qut stion Was the evidence Of such character its
face would be legal rebuttal OF maceY II not
competent. II bad been also argued that the evidence
petent affecting the question whether the pas
sion real feened 1t immateral for the jury
to find out whether was real or feigned II had been
also argued that the deceased was giving the
signal Of adultery, and that therefore the
evidence petent; but II, as the prosecution
held the adultery itself not illegal provocaon JUS
thcation, how could invitation 70 adultery be The
other learned counsel had argued that the evidence of
adultery always properly before the Court that
not In Iredeis case the evidence before the
Court whether the evidence Of adultery could be admitted
reduce the grade OF homicide and there the Court
ected such evidence He commended that where such evil
dence admitted, IL admitted only part Of the
getG.
The JudgeIn the caso Of Fisher Carrngto and Pane
tue whole is detailed the interview between the
father and the in whose house the crime
mtted committed more than once; and yet all the
circumstances gone into, so that there impos
res gestG.
District Attorney-The case In VOL nedel was pre-
cisey the Kind Of case alluded TO.
Counsel for Mr.. sIckles-There all the proofs got
District Atorncy-They we're made part of the evi.
de- Of the prosecution and put 10 evidence
nected With the homicide He challenged the defence to
point out case where objection made TO such evi
dcncc and sustained. It bad been also set up here
that the indictment reced that the deceased at the
Of the homcde in the peace Of God and OF the Uoted
oes and that he was not 90 In point of fact and that
tbe eorc, the Indictment could not be sustained The
words are mere eurplusage aud might have been omitted
Ihey meant simply that he under the protection OF
the laws Of God and man nothing than that II NJ.
pheming, would be contcnded that any might xiii
him?
Counsel for Mr. sickles-In an effort 10 prevent him
committing crime II would not be murder 70 say him.
District Atlor ney Would IL be proper TO kill
prevent him committing al assault and battery
Counsel for Mr. Sicklcs- take the ground that II man