New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-04-21

had greAi friendship !Or hef tN Nc oonsiuei0t w
. child. spd hsd psterrsi feelings towsrd Der; AID Sc
repealed, indignantly the idea having any but kisd
and fstkeIly feelisgs toward Der.
Second. thst At 8 subsequent conversation ia rs.s
tlou 10 the same subiect the witness suggested 70 Mr.
Key tbst - might get into Danger difficulty soout
tfeus-'.r NJ Key laid bis hand on the lefl bress,
Of his Goa, az. said, 1 am prepared for any enef'
gency."
Mr Ouu s-gued that eviderce of these coavsrss-
tons was ia admissible. They hsd not been IN soy
manrer coui sc.ed With the accused, and It did 10. ap-
pear that they had beer communicated 70 aim.
Mr. Brady argued that the evidence vas competent
The Ds;Tct-Atorney in his opening hai rep esen,ed
Mr Sickles as a waking arD0Ty, and MI hsy ~
being upsrmsd and - 81 M. Sckss knev tbs, be Tas
az armed This evidence row offered vas 70 saos
that Mr.. Key in reference 70 tbs very subject hai
sde gesture and expression tnst be VAS armed aod
that be was prepared 20 bis wespOn. or his yea
pons in any collision thst might occur. They asd
nothng in evidence abOat the first moment Of contAct
between Mr.. Key ard Mr.. ckies, except that there
gas loud talk between them and counsel argued tat
the previous conversation ana s.s,emens Of NJ. hey
IN reference TO the matter we're perfectly competent
evidence.
.icered he evidence offered a. showing Sn soSno Fl
edgnent On the part Of Mr.. Key OF his gun and II
seemed ths as the evidence o. a1uteIy Wa adaht
the admission Of guilt WAS As oigh evidences - co ia
he offered 10 the jury on tna point Decessei do aos
repucisie the iusnustlon Of guilt, but ne lnumated
that no mad converted himself into what the pIOsecu
ton had described the prisoner namely, q waxing
magazine prepared t. repel any attempt on the par
o. the husband 20 plrsl the iliFac-on oi MS matlIn
shts. They offered the evidences on anOsner ground.
Whatever rxkt there IS 90 sust1n this prosecution,
rows out OF the conduct ano decIarst ons OF h9y Ii
this conduct aud these deCarsous gsye han KIND Of
cdyh lupiAUm, VOLTS head, whIch pat hnn outside
C the pale OF the Government the defense 81 rsht
to show it. They proposed % show thst ne was NOT
only on an eIraad oE adultery AZ the moment OF the
homicide bu. that be was prepared 20 resist tue doom
which rightly belongs 70 the sdoltsIer. "ers MOI
these strong facts 10 90 20 t1e J1Ty the point as 20
whether deceased wac in peace Of the government
when he xss SLANT Theeydeucs Was important, also,
as meeting the assertions Of the prosecution msds 10
the opening speech of the District Attorney. lie
verify believed tha. TIE tendencies Ot all lntrlE1es OF
this Character we're TO end in the death OF tue band.
They had rem bic II stance OF this al The present
moment in Albany referring to the case OF Mrs lisr-
tungl. The evidence was therefore proper, not ooy
on the ground Of the general Inference OF danger 10 tle
husband, bat because, in this particular case, the
sdultereI had armed himself 70 resist the husDShd
he interersd with him 10 dis amour. THIS declMahpn
too, il would be remarked, was inside IN Lafayette
tausre in view Of the house OF Mr.. S.ckss, and At
tue time when Key wa contemplSnrg tle pefpetFst0n
Of tie WT0Tg iOT which be was killed.
Dir. Carlisle argued against the admission Of The
evidence lie would first notice Toe point OF Jastlnos
ton and divine yergeance, which II seemed ~ avs
Honor was understood 70 have countsuarcel ~ pre-
ViOus rulings In this case. he had noL 50 uooer3ood
his Houor's rungs. But bis Hon )r had SAID that tne
evidence Of adultery admissible, a. tending to
show the insanity only which he took 70 D. clear
exclusion OF the conclusion that II was aintte1 lor
tie purpose Of osing thst divine vengeance was
executed 90 the par, OF the prisoner The lesrns 1
council Brady had not distinctly announced inst As
one Of the grounds on Shion ne rshed,
snd he Carlisle was curious 10 hear Whab
be thought of that doctrine of divine vengeance
lie Mr. Brady ha1 argued that 1t WAS admssibe,
tecauCe xe are nOr iuquirlug into the tscJ oil Lhe
previous adultery ami because tins evidence bore ON
mat inquiry AS 10 the fact OF sdutery, ms Honor
rolled against the objection Of toe prosecution, but
with MS better Judgment OF the law, determned that
that mat or was q ut subject Of inquiry mere, Odt ek-
Cu8veiy the suggestion that It vas 10 oe c)nnejtei
with other proof 10 show the insanity OF the pusorer
Certain portions Of tho evidence terding 10 prove
adultery were admitted tending to snow tle mean
ing Of the language used by the prisoner ~ th5 ne Of
the homicide lie did not therefore, deem u necessary
10 trouble bis Honor With the argument on tnsl part o.
the proposition. Ills Honor had constantly refused 70
recoRnL 10 the doctrine OF DIVINE vengeance, Olt tns
offer Of evidence WAS based another ground,
which he deemed worthy Of confederation. IL
was offered first, to snow that Mr.. Key was srnsdi
secondly tending 70 strerg hen the Impression on te
prisoners mind that Mr.. hey armed and, thirdly
as Oelrg something 10 the nature OF Unrest oy d =
CEASED tCwsrd the prisoner. These wor9 perfectly In
tegibe grounds, and he proposei u dlscu's the as
he thought they entitled - BE- discussed. How,
then dld these declarations tsad to show that the
teceaaed WIS armed st the time the homcils took
place, ON the 9th Februsry-deClaratiODs mate ten
or twelve days before that He submitted that that
old rot tend % prove that the deceased vas armed
when tue prisoner met hiua. Whether OF not no
Was armed previous days, WAS totally unnG-
terisl AZ 20 It's beng 10 proof that the prs.
OleT knew deceased Was armed, hs had not heard
any sugges ION hat tie conversations between
witness ana deemed reIo the lifetime OF the
deceased mmunica.ed 10 tie prisoner. Admit that
the conversation took place, and that might bs III
teIpteted to that the deceased tlen wore arms
il neither proved teudsd to prove that the deceased
"a 4 hat No ny sDn-
knew he VAS armed. But whether deceased vas or
was not armed was wholly mnateusl on the ques-
ton OF the prisoners guilt " innocouco. Inc question
Was not whether he was armed, but no" ne used, or
whether be used At al, the arms which be Wa sap
posed to have carried. 1t was urged here "A, tue
declaration OF tho deceased amounted 10 an admission
bis part Of guilt, and 70 declaration that hs vas
prepared to meet any assault that mgnS DO male
upOs MIN. The offer is 10 q where the facts
snow the bonlnde, ana where the defense claims
that the homicide was righteous, deliberate
snd IN execution OF toe DEGREES Of Providence
bm16f for the purposes " jaslCo Ia the
government Of the wodd. The declaration OF
the deceased that be prepared for any
s1ch attack az that tends 10 snow that the de-
oessed made TIE frs. assault, that he thfsstened in
subsistence the prisoner Unless tina. be- the use made
Of H. submit II can have no use. Docs II tend IN
any degree TO that endY | submit not. l. Il simp y
naturally exclusively DE- NAL Of guilt aud ia
o. a warning that ne would bs Assaulted statement
that be would defend himself Before u goss 70 the
Jury, your Honor must perceive thAt reasonable
mind may reasonably infer the fact to
prove whics 1t IS offered. No saca IL
depreciation has been suggested none such
has occurred 10 me. wrong, perhaps,
il saying tpst no such Interpretation mas been sug
gssed 1, has been Suggested n the argument o. tue
gentleman 90 the other eide that # deceased had de-
Tended or had offered 20 Oeetd his life agans. tos
prisoner, satisfied as the prisoner vas thss the de-
cesssd Va. an edul.erer il would have been 20 place
bin.sef defiance Of tue law; ana that, II he mai
slain the prisoner in de.ense Ol ms Ie II wDad have
been equivalent 70 Staying the ehenf on the scahOd,
,tsnoibs there % execute tho mandate Of the az.
Need discuss this IsuPpose not. The Argument