Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1859-04-16
SITCRD4rT Eth DAY.


April l6.-At 10 o'clock this morning, the jury
came into Cont and about the same time the public
entrance opened, and again there an instant
stampede the part of the outsiders for desirable
promenade seats near the rail. Within the bar
the seats filed more leisurely.
The elder Sickles was, usual among the first
arrivals.
Judge Crawford came into court at 20 minutes
past 10 O'Clock, and the usual order for the pris-
Oner 10 be brought in was made.
The Court announced that among the notes on
his desk there were two addressed to two Of the
jurors He supposed that there would be no OBJ
lection to their being handed to the gentlemen to
whom they were addressed.
Mr.. Brady. Certainly not
The notes were then delivered by Deputy Mar
shall Phillips.
At - minutes to IL the prisoner came in, and
the jury were called.
Mr. Brady asked leave at this point to examine
i single witness, who belongs in Albany, and
wishes IA return TO that city.
Permission was granted, and Mr.. 00Zger was
placed on the stand.
TESTIMONY OF PETER CAGGER
Witness Is member Of the bar. and resides In
Albany, \. Y. Has known Mr.. Sickles twelve
years and upwards. Saw Mr.. Key once in June
ls5s, professionally was introduced to him through
a letter from Mr.. Sickles, and that letter wit
ness engaged Mr.. Keys professional services.
Mr.. Ould, rising, cited some passages from
North Carolina law reports. 9th lredel, page 16i;
also from the case Of State agt John 6. Ferguson,
~,
page 6l9, as bearing ON the question now before
the Court aud To which he desired to call the at
tention OF the Court and the counsel on the other
side.
and in continuation ofthe point maintained by him
that the other senses well As ght should prove
| adultery. What would be the condition Of a
b nd who should kill the adulterer in the act
| ia his own house, He came to the act. Ii
| was contended the other side that the very act
| of COTTON must be seen; Now, suppose that the
parties are fosnd in bed together, but quiescent,
either before after the act and lac Stays the adul
terer. Must he lind him in the very act, Sup
pose the adultercr is disrobing clothing himself
in the of the wife; does this come ithin the
rule,
! He commended that there is no specific time to
which the mitigation is confined. II they were
called upon To prove the very act OF COTTON let Us
see what condition they were to be placed In.
The adulterer conceals himself in tue shades OF
| mis- ht and obscurity. How is adultery TO be e.
| tablished. The tongue Of the deceased Is silent,
the evidence Of the wife or the husband is not To
| be admitted In the nature Of things IL would be
impossible TO get proof to establish the fact under
| such Law. In this case. no more than in the case
OF the who slew in behalf Of his son, the very
| sight Of the act Was not necessary to be proved
| Even the tcchniCalties Of this rule does not re-
quire that the killing should take place concur
| rently with the act OF COTTON. He quoted from
| Russell in proof of this point.
| Mr.. Phillips also quoted from the celebrated
case of John Manning, reported In Thomas Ray
| mOnd p. 2l2 charged with murder for killing
| man found in adultery with his wife. and Wilt
| was punished by only slight burning Of th,
| hand and, where il WAS resolved by the who'll,
court that this was only manslaugIt r, becaus,
| there could be no greater provocation. In th.
case a merely nominal punishment was adjudged
In consequence Of the grievousness Of the provo
cation.
Mr. Phillips claimed that 1t does not follow tina
because the provocation in this case, the parti.-
beino fonnd in the act, was deemed mitig gator
that = case where the state of facts did not quit
come up to this should not also justify the killing
IL the Jury in a are satisfied that adultery hi
been committed, would IL be necessary for wit
| nesses To swear to actually seeing the act! HI
quoted from the Revised Statutes OF Massac hu
tets against adultery in proof Of this Point ais