Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1859-04-18
LOCAL NEWS.
THE MADISON PLACE MURDER.
Trial of Daui.l T.. Sickles for the killing
of Philip Barton Key.
CRNlSAL COURT. II. CRAWFORD, Judge.

Carlisle. whether the Court would admit as com
potent evidence facts tending to show the previous
adultery Of the prisoners wife with the deceased.
Mr. Graham. for defence, was speaking
II the Court can legally circmscribc the action
Of the jury, then the right to make the verdict is
tken from the jury and delegated to the Court
His next point was that intention is II be illus
trated by the state Of the prisoners mind and that
intention Ia be shown by the causes producing
that Intention. la DAYS and JaFboes cases he
held that this Court had 50 decided. Now the
door To such decision was sought TO DE closed to
such testimony. In Smiths case, (Wharton'S
commentaries where ne slew Captain Carson.
the first husband of his wife, who had left her for
two years the court had sustained his view Of the
law.
The Court corrected Mr.. Graham's recollection
of that case. Swing that Carson had been absent
from his wife at for two years. and on return
ing went to his house. where he found Smith
living with his wife. and in an alteration with
Smith, Was killed By him.
Mr. Graham tcOhtinuing) referred Ia other cases
where all evidence tending To prove the adultery
had gone 10 the jury. This testimony. he con-
tended, tended to prove that hey had drawn off
Sickl's's wife from him. II il was the defence
that SIckleS was acting under a delusion. they
Could prove the deluslon from the If enti-
tied To show the origin Of the deldsion, and all
the circumstances CCOuiI1nylng it, why is il lille
gal 10 show the precise state of Sickness mind
from the facts producing that state OF mind lie
had called the Courts attention to various cases
wherein tue Husband acquires certain rights and
loses certain rights. lie held that the knowledge
of Mrs Sirkles adultery was tie impelling power
inducing the killing. Tie would make plain to
MIR. Carlisle what the stSia really is.
lie referred To tine Georgia Reports, page CO.,
wherein IL WAS held t!Iit IL was not ght tO tie
doSn the declaration 10 certain time; and if
there are intervening circumstances rendering the
fact a part of Il chain of fIctS, it was admissible
testimony. When the husband first heard Of it,
then was the time that it carried with il all the
effect il would have had If he had caught the
adulterers in the act Here Mr.. q drew a strong
picture of the frenzy Of Sickles on the night he
heard Of the proof of the act, showing. as he al
legged. = s insanity. The waving of the handker-
chief placed the deceaS d in fISraH.s dslicia
His other efforts to get up another adulterous meet
ing with Sickles' wife also place him, in law, in
HISyaHfS dsIiSiR.
WHY was the testimony of the waving the hand.
kerehlef admitted but is one Of the facts tO prove
the adultery, Ii there was doubt as To what tie
waving Of the handkerchief meant. the defence
was entitled to prove what il meant. If the de-
fence can establish the state of the prisoners mind
otherwise. whv not by showing the cause of that
state Of mind! Mr.. Z. here referred to the King
rs Whitehead, in the LIST IF Darlington and Payne.
page g., where state Of mind was proved entire
" by an action foreign to the prisoner, hut as il
bore upon his motive he WIS allowed thus To show
=. Ia the case of Cruchlcy. 5th Darlington and
Payne, PAGE lJ3, the prisoner was permitted to
show that Ia was compelled to break the law by
tine violence of mob
The defence here asked leave TO show that Sic
not Oi a mob
He next referred to the ease of Powell and TIar-
PEI. lStillt doom, iEt-e I'LL where the defence
were permitted To- Justify by showing the state
ments Of the alleged thief when the defendents
received the stolen goods from him. Mr.. q. con-
tnuinL read from other authorities ceases wherein
the declarations of Others had been received as
Justification for the state of the minds of tue
cuS,d. He held that JarbOe had been acquitted
"n tine ground of temporary insanity. The report
al the case and the manner IN which the court left
IL 20 the jury. showed that il designed by the
court tO De- decided on the point of insanity, and
was 80 decided by the jury.
In hal "A to.
before the jury. what interest had Sickles in his
wife when he met Mr.. hey. knowing that she had
forfeited her marriage vow, Even though he
had made up his mind To surrender her To her
fate, what must have 'een the state vi his mind
towards her destroyer
Mr.. Carlisle corrected 4 declaration OF Mr.. Ora
ham He had commended that the prisoner knew
meeting Key. that Key could not again have
adulterOas intercourse with his wife.
In conclusion, Mr.. Graham would say that If the
position Of the United States in this case was tn be
adhered 10, this case ought to have stopped with
the cOroncr's jury. The inquest found who had
killed Mr. Key. and the prosecution had endcav-
Ur'd thus fur most strenuoaSly to cOGfne the de-
fence 10 that single point and steadfIstly refused
10 admit 1ny extension Of evidence showing the
If that killing He held that the case should
have ended with the coroner 5 Jury He Submitted
that this trial WIS to develop the state of Sckes
mind, and that every fact going to show il was
proper Ia 90 before the jury II was not for the
prosecution, ON finding that the defence could
prov" the adultery, 10 object Ia the testimony Of
facts going Ia prove il. The prosecution desired
the Court 10 put stop to the Offering of testimony
such as had been admitted up TO that point IA the
IrIal OF the case.
Mr.. Ould replied. stating that the ground Of
ibis application of the defence are four in mum Der
tirs that the facts recited amount u juslifica,
tOni second If not, then To u legal pruVocaton
third, if not to either. then they were good proof
II insanity fourth if 10 insanity then To prove
the state Of the prisoners excitement.
The questions of justification and provocatiOu
Were legal questions 1t was said that tue judg-
Ilents of Old times were ON special yerdrts. and
that none such rendered here the rulings in
tDUs, as wOald not hold good here. As offered
the proposition implied the rIth of the facts Offer
ed Ia evidence. The Cont were to take that for
granted; and IL was the Courts duty to take their
legal effect into consideration. Ia that case il was
the dntE OF the Court To decide as the English
courts did ian cases of special yerdicts disagree
able as that duty might De. The language Of the
Law was that killing by tue husband, on finding
the parties in the at OF adultery. nIanslau.h
Ter: otherwise. murder.
The defence wrong in insisting that the
prose -utiUn Il im. q that the husbands behold
Ing the parties in adultery was necessary Ia nti-
gate the killing 10 manslaughtPr. On the con
trdry. the finding the parties thus engaged
the legal meaning of the point is contcnded for
ny the Prosecution: If the husband pursue tine
party and slew him from revenge the offence
Was murder. There might be wherein
~ the klllInS was On. sight the offence would be-
murder Thus. If Al a dlsLuce and seeing the com
mission Of the act with t-lt=scOpr and ne should
proceed to Kill the adutcrcT he would be excluded
from the benefit Of the rule. Each To be
Jdd 5ed by I;Sr.f. and II showing that the killer
nisds the parties Ia the act he can claim the benefit
Oi the cNCuse--nOt otherwise.
He desired the defence tO explain how far what
tLcy termed marital ri ZhtS went. Whether il
Justification for killing. nac day. two days.
wear after the fact Of the adultery II was totally
luIlnaterial what the state nf tine prisoners mind
was. if the time had elapsed which the law says
Is sufficient cOOling time. Ii. As the defence
ClaimS. this new doctrine extends not only IL
adultery. bat TO lust. whsre will il end IL not
only proof. but on unustifable suspicion one
NAV Kill. what would be the state of society The
United States had not. and would not defend adul-
trrV- The question was not that OF the defence of
dltery, but Of the night 10 Kill under the alleged
circumstances
Mr. OHld here reviewed the Scriptural part of
the argument II the defence and read from the
til HAPPIER ui John, the story of tine woman taken
Ia adultery. whose condemnation under the Mo
sale law was claimed 10y the mob. 10 whom lie
sud, Let him who j. without sin cast the first
stone" He COntrdsted the dOstrin Of Jesus ON
Il subject " TIA that Of the Mosaic law claimed
by the defence. in eloquent terms, amid profound
silence ia tIc courtroom.
IL was the genius and spirit Of Christianity. a.
10 were. STOPPING from the very heavens aud
t-arhiny the doctrine OF ch1rity-kindness. peace
aid goodwill tie had heard il read. and il was
law that when party is found in the very act