Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1859-04-13


went 10 add to the pressure of mind under which
ne was when he committed the act How far the
unsupported statements Of the wife was evidence
was for the jury to decide. IL matter for the
jury when the Court would submit il To them ,s
evidence It's competency was one thing and IL,
effect was another. Whether IL was made with
any collision with the husband or not, did not
bear on its competence, but ON its effect
1t had been held that intoxication was not IN he
given as an excuse for the commission of crime.
when committed under its influence in relation
leaf sec. l4s. The court would perceive that now
the rule was mitigated to show the anf,rus of the
mind at tie time the act was committed Also ON
this point, lac referred to 4th of Herman, 5G2 the
case OF the people against Eastman.
he asked II II was not one of the most tyrannical
species OK misfortune which produced the stale of
mind of the accused --
The defence commended that this testimony WAS
competent. because il tended TO show the status of
the prisoner when he committed the alleged GRIM
1nal act and in fact led him to the commission of
the act for which he was now being tried Sup
pose the wife to return home and inform the hus-
band that she had been insulted in the street.
would IL be commended that the husband was 10 be
called TO account Tor any act perpetrated by him
while acting under the excitement which such a
tale would naturally give rise to! In the very
case Of Jarboe, was not that brother permitted to
offer in evidence the narrative made to him by
his sister. To be sure this evidence was hearsay,
put Il was that hearsay to which the law lent an
Take the case of Singleton Mercer; but for the
fact that that brother permitted to show by the
narrative of his sister that she was ravshes y the
man slain. Singleton Mercer would have died on
the gallows. All the defence wished was to show
that Mrs. Sickles made these declarations In wri-
ting to supply ground for the subsequent state of
mind of the husband which led to the commits
sion of the homicide With reference to this
point, the speaker read from First Greenleaf sec
3i2 1t was part of the res gsssa, and was neces
sarily part Of the occurrence itself.
The Question was whether the interregnum of
minute, or an hour, year was sufficient to ex-
clnde this evidence under the peculiar circum-
stances of this case Standing by itself, this pa-
per was mere hearsay, but il was so closely CON
nected with the circumstances IS to be inseparable
from the act which followed its receipt In further
support Of this point the speaker read from the
same volume, section It's.
Was the prisoner to be cut and fitted into CON-
victon in spite of the truth, Who lighted this
flame In the breast of the accused, III this wife
applied the torch to the temple of this husbands
happiness, how shall this husband suffer when he
arose upon the instincts of his nature and CON-
United the act for which he must receive the CON-
mendation of the whole world
Mr.. Graham cited the case of a man found by
the body of one whom he had killed, and who's.
words on first being approached by others, to the
effect that he had killed the man but it was In
self-defence, were received In evidence.
Mr. Ould in justice to the defence, replied that
he understood that this evidence was proposed to
be given To SHOW insanity
Mr.. Brady repeated that the defence offered this
statement to show that it produced the state of
the subsequent act.
Mr.. OuId did not propose now to answer the ar
gnment of the gentleman on the other side, but
merely rose la state how he understood the zen
tlemen rs Ia the point they proposed to make
the paper in question bear. His remarks wol Id
have been of different character than they had
been. and he should have taken occasion to quote
authorities to which he desired to call the atten-
ton Of the gentlemen OH the other side had he not
misunderstood him.
Mr.. Brady stated that the defence would repose
.slNa.
by Mr.. Bradley in the case of the United States
agt. JarbOc.
Mr.. Brady proceeded to read from the print
ed pamphlet containing the report of the case al
ludrd to. -.
Mr.. Brady went on to comment upon the cross
exaInination,-he would not call IL .'artful ~ but
artistic, through which Mr. Carlisle had put Mr.
Walker this morning In that exami natiOn
MIR. e had constantly used the word '.gref'' and
tried 10 put nomenclature philolOgy into the
mouth Of the witness, who, however, adhered to
his own vocabulary and called 1t frenzy, - and
At the close of Mr.. Grahams remarks it being
10 minutes past p. IN, the court adjourned.
NINTH D4Y-WEDNESDAY
april I3.-The rules against standing in or occu-
plying the passages of the courtroom We're even
more rigidly enforced than yesterday by the
police. All entrance through the Marshal's office,
save for prisoner and jury, was prohibited; and
the privileges Of the within-the-bar lookers-on
were curtliled in variety Of ways-much to the
advantage Of those having Legitimate business to
perform in the room.
The Judge came into court at twenty minutes
past 10 o'clock, and the crier restored order; after
which, the Court ordered that the prisoner be
brought into the dock.
At half past TO- the prisoner, accompanied by the
jailOr and number of friends, entered the court
room, and was Immediately surrounded by his
counsel.
The jury was then called, and answered to their
names.
Mr. Carlisle then rose to address the Court in re-
ply to the argument of Messrs. Graham and Brady
Yesterday rs To the admission of Mrs. Sickles' )
statement which it had been proposed to place be-
fore the Jury evidence tending tn show the
cause which produced the state of mind of the
prisoner when he committed the crime for which
he is now on trial. This matter touched closely
the question whether public justice should he a
contemplate sham. 1t did not seem to tho speaker
that there was entire concord between the two
gentlemen who addressed the court yesterday on
the part of the defence. This evidence had been
proposed by ole gentleman for one purpose. and
by the other for another and totally different pur-
pose.
The speaker thought the Court would see the
importance Of considering this evidence in respect
to tue particular purpose for which ii wan admis-
sible. Mr.. Graham had thought this fact was adj
INVISIBLE as tending 10 show something short Of
insanity in respect to the state Of the prisoners
mind. He had undertaken to show the court that
the rule Of law bearing on this point had been
SOtnewn dt Relaxed. ana tile speaker that
he had appealed to the Court IL il still further
His colleague, while he spoke or the status of the
prisoners mind, indicated that he had some en-
1arged views the subject Of insanity. lie spoke
Of the prisoners mind as being unhinged.
There must be-, Mr.. Carlisle urged, not excited
passions nor overwhelming grief, but insanity
shown. This was not d time Ia speak OF all the
implications on the other side, they must all come
down to the test Of the law and bear on the spe-
chic case Of insanity. The speaker had not vet
heard the counsel say to the Court the jury that
the prisoner insane at the time he committed
the homicide. IL this evidence TO be- admit
ted at ALL il must be alone tire ground that the
prisoner at the time insane.
AR Carlisle proceeded to examine the character
OF the statement of Mrs. SickleS, and TO the intro
duciiOu Of which he objected ou the ground, LIST.
That il is the work of prisoners wife, written in
his presence, evidently at his instance directly
under his control The general rule undoubtedly
is that husband and wife are incompetent Ia be
witnesses either for against In any civil crimi
nal suit TO which either Is party. lie understood
the other side to undertake to modify that rule; to
undertake to maintiin that the wife was as ii were
the property Of the husband, and that this rule
of evidence is a species Of regulation for the benc
fit of tile husband, which he may waive. This
was not So; the rule is imperative against testmo-
ny in favor of the husband as well as against him
In support OF this point, the speaker quoted from
a decision ~ Judge Crawford In q case bearing on