New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-04-14
TRIAL OF DANIEL E. SICKLES,
CHARGED WITH THE
MURDER OF PHILIP BARTON KEY.
NINTH DAYS PROCEEDINGS

deep and intense in this CONN uBIy today a. Il was
III. dsy Of ire homicide at Madison place II Is the
| sole topio OF couver9tioo wherever men meet, or
| women either. The thIi ling scene which r6ospred
| Yesterday when the wounds Of M. Sckles we're
opered sfrssh by toe touching eviterce OF K. j.
" Alker and xbea els emotions 50 completely over
posersd him Is to render bis removal from the Court
Room seoe~ssIy, sppesled in tins most patastc snd
ELOQUENT manner 70 the hesris Of all present.
There was hardly s dry eye il Court, and certiniy
not heart remained ussfe ted by ii. Tois sceoe,
tie confession of the fstbess wife, and the cescnp-
ons given OF the sgonies which Mr. Scklss suffered
when the appalling truth forced tsef upon his mind,
have uoA 70. hun the sympStaiss OF the whole CON-
muIty ard his unset migst, with the utmost conn.,
derce submit the to the Jory without another
word of testimony, or word Of summing up.
The moment tks doors were opened tais morning,
the trs-d poured in sd led up the space get apart
for tie sudeuce.
The NevYork illustrated papers are circulating
here smong the lawyers and Others, asd are cresrg
opsder,bls amusement By tbs very aosurdty of the
sketches and the sbsenoe Of snituie in N st OF them
to the persons and things represented
judge Crawford took bis seat at 1920, when the
Court vas duly opered.
Shortly afterwsrd BAR Sekles was conducted to his
seat. He appeared to have recovered his wonted
compoeuIe though his face WAS marked WITH the Ines
of recent sorrow and suffering.
The cour sci for the defense, Mssns. Brsdy and
Stanton occupied chairs in front Of the dock, and con
ferr.d with Mr.. Sckles occasionally.
Tee names If the jurors having been called, and all
hsvirx answered 70 their names, Mr.. Carlisle pro-
ceeoed to argue sgsust the sdmissibity Of the con
fessoa Of Mrs. Sekles.
Mr.. Carlisle presumed that the Judgs had alresdy
consulted the authorities and hsd made up his mud
on the point but still he Mr. Carse) would not have
disch sged hs duties fully dd be lot oppose the offer
Il wss of tbs first inpoitsncesn importance which
yeut the length of determining whether justice was to
become contemptibls shsm-thst his Honor, If
| he admitted tie evidence at ALL sho1ld expressly
| limit the uses to which il was TO be applied.
1t struck him that there not erte concord 10 the
minds Of tie council for the defense as to the purpose
for Which the evidence offered and Tor which II
| was admissible. The counsel who offered it pro-
| posed il for one purpose, and the counsel who
| succeeded him offered II for another. IL Was
| offered as bearing on the status OF the prs
oners mird and not as proving the acts stated III NJ
but tbs colleague Mr. Graham, showed that he one at
to maintain that the fact appealed to was tact which
ought to be legally sppesled to for tie ascertain
| ment OF the condition Of the prisoners mind at
| the tine Of and anterior TO the homicide. Not
| content with that ne claimed that the fact Ia
question fact proper with other fAets 10 snow
| the irresistible impulse under which the prisoner
| moved forward TO tue coBsumms Ion oil tue s)eoe.
| Mr.. Graham thought this fact was admissible as
tending TO chow something short of insanity 10 re-
spect to the prisoner mind and to hs Honor
to relax still fuJther the rules of evidence on sucn
Do mt lie arr ned that as may be proved
case rat the prisoner quated the intoxicating DOW,
20 in this cees it might proved that the prisoner
drantd to the dregs 6gurstiye cup filed with the
btteres ct draught. This rhetoric but was not law
In all the question il, not whether inc prisoner
! drsLk LIQUOR enough 10 make him drunk, but
whether in point of fact, he was drunk, either
| from little drinking or much drinking. MIR.
| Brady, however, had Indicated, while cDnhning
himself to strictly legal language, that ne had some
enlarged idess about the question OF insanity and re-
| leIred to case where his Honor had spoken OF a
| prisoners mind being someshat unhinged.
lie tCarse regarded that 10 apply not TO an eAn bi-
on Of passion, but to uns0uadness OF mind to nssni-
~. As to Ill the grounds distinctly taken, and ths
argum. nts Incidentally made he submitted that they
all down TO the test OF the law aud resolve
| themselves into the single question OF insanity.
Now he had not heard aay Of the counsel calm that
the prisoner insane at the time OF the homicide,
and he submitted that before the evidences could be
received IL nus be proposed on the single ground that
| the pris0ser az tie time OF the commission OF the
non ioide ms ne when 10 proposed on that
fr0hno prosecution would be prepared " meet 1t.
| The que stt vas whether sdultsry could bs given
IN evidence in mitigation Of the ofime Of murder TO
the grade OF granddaughter Snch case was decided
| Ia the Court OF Appeals vi ole OF The states.
| Mr.. Phillips Inst was the Gaze Of a slave.
mr. Csrisle-It VAS, but that makes no difference.
We ell are, OF ought to be, slaves TO the law Now,
what tho instrument Of evidence mere and
what was the fact offered in evitenoe ten3ing 10
Prove insanity The instrument OF evidence purpers
to be- formal sri,ten deliberate and particular state
ment IN the pIessL Of her husband, concluding with
a species Of ate sting clause signed by tso witnesses
snd sl.h additional csuse showing that the con-
iession made without any fear or hope OF reward
This formal, deliberate, solemn deed OF Ieruoeialon
of marital rights is offered 10 DE given IN evidence.
TIE prosecution objected to al first because it wastne
work OF toe prisoners wife in his presence, and evil
debtly TO be inferred nj his instance directly under HIS
control Nobody disputed the general rule Unless In
deed Nh Graham, to be thst the husband sod vile ara
incompetent b be WitLe2ses, the one either ior of
| against the other, in any cause, civil or crlm-
| nal, TO which either OK them 10 q party. Mr..
I Graham seemed 20 think however, that the age
Of progress had med fed that law and thst the rule
was species of regulation for the benefit OF tue has
! band, and which he msy waive fna, is not
80. The wife is as incompetent 10 testify IN favor
IS enc IA totsstify agslnet her Husband. Coun-
| eel referred TO eese wLere this Court, in the
! case Of double indictment, refused 70 allow
! tire wife TO testify in favor Of the person
| who was tral, becsuee her testimony might
! have lie effect on the Of her hasbsud. This
was rot ap offer to bring the wife into Court as
with ess, but ~ produce her dsclarstion VIVA.
the answer 10 that First, that declarations are
itie'ior sort Of tesim' ny ard sseond, taaT where
| q wires 10 iDadGiesabe. all the declarations
| Of trat witness are insduisssbe. Dying de-
! clsrati.us exceptions to this general rule.
! Bot vas the fact Itself competent 10 be received
Fir be admissible in evidence is bee Il tends {,
prove something 10 is.ue IL might be s1nssible, il
| offered 10 make up the defense Of insanity.
| II nos Ink in the chain Of evidence by
| which i. il proposed 10 out the ciAn
! Of insanity what principle 10 II offered nov
| BE submitted that the wife could not be permitted
20 conribute grain OF sand toward the building up
of cry oeferse for her be. band. h there we're aay
law decision 10 the contrary be would like to it.
Mr. Graham would cell attention 20 four Authorities
| on thst poirt, viz Walton and Green. vol !. Car.