New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-04-13

~. hare on Wednesday ss' 80 n- . sSd q, |
wsSt there acne. L,or. va sfrs. fIsovsr's Mr..
Key tcok arc 'su ~ y a. my r,qoeet: from |
from there TO the mix m .o,,s Immediately aft.r
NJ hey ieis baoiS AZ NJ Hoovefs, I met him IN |
Fli;eerth stree. Wers IN by the back gate. Went
wss hsd. / undIesss n-,ssr Mr. Kew addressed
sso. Inis occurred ~ wednesday, I'D Of February,
1873 MI Key hss k<ssed ne 10 this house DuD-
pr ~ Gu' nj; - rot deny that We have hal con-
psrior, Oh me f.. Mr.. SicSes sometimes out Of
loNp sLo 80" srres IN the Capitol. think the 10
1 hi Y sroed in Apr or May, 1888. DID not
hn ~ esF ~ meet him in this hou,e, because thsre
.hiDg, have bisck and white WOODEN
pl 'il. rcPs, and beaver hat trimmed with black
~ . Have "a black silk dress there also,
~ sPaid ELK dresn, black velvet CLOAK IN nmsd
n lace, end black velvet shawl trimmed with
.irgo On "Wednesday either had on my brown
eYess or black and white wooden dress beaver
sst and velvet shawl. l arranged wita I'M M;
LARA at Are. Hoovers. lie met me q. Mr..
Dois l4ss T. Inc arrangement 10 60 in the bsck way
YVES either made in the street or by Mr. Do1glsss as
Fifteenth ltreet, between and streets, on TIE let
bsnd tide Of the way; arranged the inier
view for Wednesday, in the street, think, on Mon
day. l went in the front door, u vas open occupied
he sans rooms; undressed self, and ne also; went
10 bed together Mr.. Key has ridden IN Mr.: Sekiess
carnage, and haze called at his house without Mr..
Sekless knowledge and after my being told not to 10.
vite him 70 dc 60, and against Mr. Sckless repesed
request. TERESA bAsioLi.
This ie true statement written by myself, without
any Indictment held out by Mr. Sckles of forgiveness
or reward, ard without any menace from MIN. This
have written with my bedroom door opeu, ana my
maid sno child il the adjoining room, at 81 CLOCK 10
the evening. Miss Ridgeey is IN the house, within
call. o,o,,
lLsfaystse, qua,e, Washiagton d. C., FEB. u, 1885,
Mr. and Mrs Pendleton dined here two weeks ago
last Tbnrsdsy, with large party. Mr.. Key was also
here her brother, and at my suggestion ne was IN
yted because he lived 10 the same house. and also be-
cause be had invited M Sickes TO dine with him, and
Mr.. Sckles wished TO invite all those from whom he
had received invitations and Mr. sickss said, g do
"a Won choose" TERESA BAGIoLI.
Written end signed in presence of C. NJ Ridgely
ard Bridget ID 5ffy.
february 2, 1889.
Counsel for the prosecution examined the paper and
conferred about its sdmissibiy.
The District Attorney objected to its being put IN
evidence and the paper WAS laid before the Judge
Mr.. Brady would state in general wsy, the ground
on which they offered it as communication 10 Mr..
Sckles affecting his mind and producing or contlnu
ing the excitement under which he la6ored; they had
fully cor suited the authorities as TO s sdnisbity in
that point of view.
TIE Judge read over the paper slowly and atten-
| lively.
The Dis,rct.Aaorney argued that the evidence was
inadmissabe many grounds; 1t struck at the root
OF several Of the most cardinal rules OF evidences IN
the first place it bearsay and therefore objection
able; it was communication passing between nus
band and wife-parties who excluded from being
witnesses for against each other. This rule not
Only extended 10 direct testimony but went further,
ana prevented frequently and generally collateral mat
ters between husband and wife being given in evi,
dence This evidence, he under5tood not offered
on the ground of justification, but on the ground that
the statement produced temporary insanity Ii the
husband was thrown into state of insanity by this
communication, that fact could be distinctly proved
without the communication fsef being put in evidences
bs insanity could be proved by the conduct and move
mepts Of the prisoner but could not be proved by the
| character of any communication made to him. ls
necessary tendency not TO produce lnssniy some
minds would be affected more and some lees oy sucn
communication, and therefore it could not be put in
| evidence to prove insanlty.
Counsel for defense argued the admissbilty Of this
confession. 1t was offered for the purpose OF account
ing for the state of mind in which the defendant was
at the time Of the homcide it helped to constitute
that irresistible pressure under which he acted IN ref
erence TO either murder maneaughter the state OF
| mind was all important How far that confession
| would act on the prisoners mind would be matter
for the Jury TO decide; but the relevancy or compe-
tency OF the evidence entirely another question
1t was not alleged by the other SIDE that this comics,
| zion got up by colusion between the wife and
husband. If that allegation made, II would be
matter for the Jury 10 pass upon TO whether 1t was
tue or not. II not disputed that the statements
of the wife were made in good fatn nor was 1t disputed
that they true The defense did not seek TO show
thatthe prisoner snsanty produced by this comics
son but that he drained cup OF bitterness filled ard
furnished TO him sy the hand of the wife, which might
well account for the madness of any human being.
Counsel referred to vol d. Herman, p. 562, to deois.
ion in the NewYoIk Court Of Appeals in the case of
| the People sgabst Eastwood. He held that II this
cup Of bitterness even though it were false, were
| presented to him by one In whom he had right
| to have confidence, and II II hurled reason from
| it's throne, il was evidence in the case. hus-
band was not bound TO institute tris into the truth
! Of a communication made by his wife. The husband
who acts upon the information OF his wife is not re-
sponsibe for the truth fsity of thst statement.
They oere this confession having insted madness
into the mind of the band and as having led HIM to
| commit the act for which he stands indicted. IL
wife informed her husband that she had been assaulted
or insuted in the street. and If The husband rushed out
and in an ARRAY with the offender hurt or killed MN,
would il be held that the husband 10 be deprived
Of the right Of giving in evidence the communication
| which led him to the commission of tbs act In the
case Of Jarboe decided in this Coat had not prisoner
acted the statement of his sister, and Was not that
hesrsay evidence much this So in the case of
Singleton Mercer. In that the prisoner was per-
mtted 10 by his sister that che mad been sefuced
and that che informed her brother OF IT, But for that,
Singleton Mercer would have died upon the scsffod.
In the case of Amelia Norman the same principle was
| held But the prosecution here c0nended that the
| statement of wife TO her husband was insdmis
| sable, because il came within the rule which for
bids wife 10 be witness for or against husband.
But the defense did not proposs to place Mrs. Sickes
the stand to make her. IN tue technical sense,
witness Counsel referred to Greenleaf on Evidence,
section g. showing that in collateral matters no,
striking at the msters interests OF BOTH the dscara
ton of her husband or wife was admissible. Waive
the privilege il lie the husband who seals the mouth
| of his wife and the wife who seals the mouth Of her
| husband. THIS privilege was held IS 9 privilege In
favor of the relation and the parties to IT. Bat, the
husband chole TO waive that privilege, and permit his
wife TO open her mouth what prDcipe OF law Is he
to be denied that right Besides, this confession was
part of the res ges0. On this point he referred TO
IN t there declAra.