Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1859-04-15
THE SICKLES TRIAL.
TENTH DAY.

ed, if Mrs Sickles's confession had been re-
ceived, to give in evidence the facts that in
January last Mr.. Sickles and a lady not his
wife remained during a night in Barnum's Ho-
tel, Baltimore. The hotel register in
Court, for the purpose. 1t appears, however
from the register, that there is first the entry
of Mr.. Sickness name in his own handwriting,
then the names of several other persons, and
about ten lines below, the name of Mrs. Dan
iel L. Sickles," in different handwriting
This shows that if the Judge had let in the
confession, vast amount of scandal on both
sides would have been brought on, involving
persons not yet mentioned in the affair.
George B. Walbridge was the first witness
called.
On the 9th of February last / resided at
534 Twelfth street, Washington; was a clerk
under the clerk of the house; knew Mr.. Key;
never spoke to him but once or twice; on Sat
urday Feb. 26, was in Fifteenth street from
10 o'clock until 3; | saw Mr.. Sickles that after
noon, between 4 and 8, at the Capitol; when
first went to him he appeared better than he
was the day before, more like himself; he was
in the hall; got him to go into retiring
room, and there parted with him, after en-
deayoring to pacify him he was very much
affected and distressed saw him no more
that day saw him next morning in the Ii
brary of his own house; his eyes were blood
shot and red he approached me and said he
had sent for me his face denoted that
he had been weeping; | remained in the
house, until all the strangers had left
1t, III the afternoon He acted, during the
day, like man in great sorrow so much so,
that | watched his coming and going constant
ly; every time he came into the room where
was, he pressed his hands against his tenn
pies, and would go over to the secretary as if
in great disturbance; he would not sob and
cry, SO much that told him to give vent to
his tears as that would relieve him ; he would
raise his hands and excaim; sometimes these
fits would take him before he could get to the
secretary, where he went as if to hide himself,
and then he would bow down his head as if
his stomach was giving way, and he would be
hardly able to reach the secretary. l saw Mr..
Key twice that Sunday. The first time, be-
tween ten and eleven o'clock, going out of the
gate 0f Lafayette Square, on the corner of Seven
teenth street and Pennsylvania Avenue, on the
street Mr.. Sickless house is in. He crossed the
street and went up the Avenue. The second
time | saw him was about quarter to four
o'clock, directly in front Of Mr. Sickles's libra
ry window there were a lady and gentleman
with him then. Mr.. Sickles was up stairs at
the time; | saw Key take his handkerchief
out and wave it three times he turned his
eyes to the upper window of Mr. SIS house;
he parted with the lady and gentleman at the
corner, and entered the park of Madison
Place. Some five minutes before that, Mr.. S.
had gone up stairs. Two minutes after, /
heard some one coming down stairs very rap
idly, and come into the library who said
"That villain has just passed my house"
District Attorney-Do not state what he
said
Mr. Brady-What did he do?
Witness-He was very much excited, and
talked for a moment with Mr. Butterworth
who endeavored to calm him. He threw Mr.
Butterworth off and turned into the hall That
is the last | saw of him, until he came into the
house with Police officers. Mayor Berrett
was there and Captain Goddard, Mr.. Walker,
MIR. Blair, Mr.. Cusky and some other gentle
men, Sickles came into the library, turned
round, and then went out as if to go up stairs,
l remained in the library. did not hear his
sobbing. My attention was directed to the
persons in the room with me- l was very
much excited, Inever want to see such anoth-
er day as that.
Mr.. Brady proposed to prove the state of
mind in which Mr.. S. was when the witness
saw him at the Capitol on Saturday, and asked
whether he made any communication to him
at the time.
Mr.. Ould objected to the admission of de-
clarations of the prisoner Insanity is fact
distinctly capable of proof. The only proper
evidence would be, the manifestations Of men
tai disease given by the prisoner, either at the
time the communication was made or subse-
quently up to the commission of the homicide.
This evidence could not be offered for any such
purpose as showing that there was provocation
of any kind. Even adultery does not offer any
excuse or justification unless the husband
catches the wife i'll the act. Then the offence
is reduced from murder to manslaughter. He
understood the proposition of the evidence to
be this: that on Saturday certain commune
cation connected with the adulterous inter-
course of the prisoners wife was made to the
prisoner at the bar which threw him into such
state of excitement as demonstrated insanity,
or rage, or frenzy. Such evidence as stops
short of insanity is nadmissible. He then
quoted from North Carolina and Tennessee de-
cisions, cases i'll which the court decided
against the assumption that the proyocation of
adulterous intercourse mitigated the crime of
murder to manslaughter, even when the de-
ceased was found in the act of adultery at the
time when the homicide was committed.
After further argument, he said it seemed
to the counsel for the United States that the
statement was entirely and totally incompetent
as evidence.
Mr.. Stanton replied, the evidence presented
one proposition entirely different from that ar
ment of the act of the homicide, the prisoner
declared that the deceased had violated his bed.
On the previous day he is found terribly ex
cited, and in that same condition he is traced
down to the moment of the homicide: and at-
forwards no one who heard the testimony of
Mr. Walker would ever forget it.
The defence proposed TO prove, as part
ly accounting for this condition, that GER
tain communication was made to the prisoner.
Not the Court, but the jury, are to determine
as to how this communication would act on
the reason of the prisoner. The public prose-
cutor had undertaken to argue that the offence
of staying an adulterer cannot be reduced from
murder to manslaughter, unless the husband
had ocular demonstration of the fact He de-
MED that that was law. He denied that it had
ever been SO decided and, in the name of hui
manity, that it would ever be so decided,
Counsel wanted it understood and held in
mind, that although the prisoner, at the time
of the homicide, declared that deceased had
dishonored his bed, yet the correspondence be-
tween the prisoner and deceased, IN refer
ence to prisoners wife, had been excluded.
So, too, communication from the wife to the
husband which was enough TO induce the
prisoner to sacrifice, not one life but whole
hecatomb of lives was excluded and here
communication from third party OF charac-
ter to affect the prisoner is offered to be prov
ed and the prosecution object The case cited
by the prosecution was that OF slave VIE.
The prosecution, in their thirst for blood, had
forgotten the institution of Heaven For the
judges had laid down the principle that no
civil rights are acquired by slave on account
of marriage. But the very evidence which in
that case was excluded on the point of justf-
cation, was admitted on the point Of showing
the prisoners mind. That was all they claim