The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1859-04-18
Il II / A L OF
ID ANIEL e. SICKLES s
FOR THE MURDER OF
y. BARTON KEY.
CONTINUATION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THE
DEFENCE,


WASHINGTON, Saturday, March 10.
The press IL requested, on the part of Mr.. sckIcs
to state that he deaply regrets, for many reasonH
aud particularly for the sake Of bic child who must
some day read the record of her mothers shame,
that the confession of Mrs. sickles was published
The publication was contrary to his wishes, aud
had 1t been in bis power,he would have suppressed
II.
The Court was opened at tho usual hour, and the
usual crowd filled the room. This argument on
the question OF admissibiity Of adultery was pre-
termittei for the preseat, in order 10 allow Pei,
Caeger. OF Albany, TO be examined.
i1ter Cdgger testified that he Is q member of the
bar in the city Of Albany; has known sickles
twelve years; was introduced TO 9ir. Key by Mr.
sckes in June, 1858, and engaged Key 10 n case
as counsel, on the basis of tha. Introduction TSa
CROSS examination
Philips resumed nis argument of yesterday. ra-
capituatiug aud summarizing biz several points
How is adultery to be established? The toprue
of the deceased is silent, the evidence of the wio
or the husband is not to bo admitted In the ma,
sure Of things 1t woGd be i'm possible 10 get nrooi
TO establish the fact under such law. In this case
no more than In the case Of the man who aew In
behalf of his 500, the very sight of the set wna NOT
necessary TO be proved Even the ,echpical;ties al
this rule does not require that the killing ahonld
take place concurren,iy with the act of COTTON
He quoted from Russell in proof of this point.
Mr.. PHILIPPE also quoted from the celebrated cs Ga
of john Manning reported in Thomas RAYMOND.
.. 2l2,) charged with murder for killing a man
found IN adultery with his wife, and who was r,uu
ished by oBly slight burning of the hand and
where twas resolved by the whole court that this
was ouly mansiaughter, because a mere pomina,
punishment vas adjudged, 10 consequence of the
griovousness OF the prOvcc atou.
Mr.. Phillips claimed that it does not folln,r tho
because the proyocation 10 this case, the parties
being iouua 10 the act, wassdeemed a mitigation,
that Il case whore the state of facts did not auite
come up to this should not also Justify the kiiiino
If the jury in case are satisfied that adultery has
been Committed, wonid It be necessary tor witness,
es TO swear 10 actually seeiug the act.
The rule is the same in other States and in the
English courts. He referred to the state srainst
Wallace in the 9th New Hampshire aud frc m the
case Of the State against Croiey in 1st Iahama
page l74; also, TO opening ofLs9rd Stowe ia Green
leafs evidence. He would new ask if the know.
ledge Of adultery upon tho part of the husband is
required TO be greater team by jury passing upon
the fact: Should an eZcitable husband be re1uirsd
to have stronger evidence than calm refec.inc
jury.
lie referred to the case of John, the slave ia n
Carolina, vho killed his wife, ne having no marital
rights, under the law of that State. Would there
be no distinction in morals between the case of a
white man having marital rights ard the slave
who has 10 marital rights? viii Ee not feel more
Coming back 10 the question of provocation he
coDtehded that If this vas excluded and the
defence were called upcn 10 rely upon proving
tue passion, the other side might claim that the
passion was feigEed or fictitious one HIS insisted
that the defence had right to show the yru.h OF
the provocaton to rebut any assertion on the other
aide that tie passion fictitious. lie referred
TO lat Phillips on Evidence, p. 172; also TO the lst
Gr8euleaf. IA. How il jury u arrive at the fact
whether the passion is reai or feigned. unless the
greatness OF the nrosocation can be reCeiged as
proof.
lie recited the aggravated facts they offered to
prove, maxi ny up the proVscatiou up TO SATURDAY.
night: aad also the new proVGca tion'simmedjatei
leading to the killing lie insisted that thoTa was
Immediately before the killing new provocatiou
II it is necessary 70 show evidence of proyCcaiof
and passion, it Is necessary 10 show both. Tbs
Court occupied position Ia this case which Sci
doII fell to tie lot OF Judge, to apply an aGaiy.
sis OF the law to the new aspects OF the case nov
al issue. The dstence offer TO prove she truth T.
the ury, anG shall the truth relevant to the faci
be excluded. If upon this point there should b.
any Doubt in the mind OF the court, that d0ub:
should be in favor OF the prisoner.
Mr. Graham followed on the same side recapitu.
lating the proposition heretofore stated on the
part OF the defence.
The question vas, whether the evidence should
be prgudged as to its effect bGfJre il haG been re,
ceiyed! The application Of the defence was TO ex
tend the liue Of proof. The prosecution haJ ex.
perimented with the defence, and when they
found the avalanche descending upon them tuey
asked the court 10 exclude the evidence extend.
ing thu evidence of tie commissioner of the al.
Ieged crime Mr. s. was in O state OF exaspera,ior
which precluGed the idea of his weighing
the character or effect of his acts. The question
before the court was, whether the defence shd ud
take the parties beyond the door Of the house
where they had been left by the witness WHO last
testified, and show them in the very act Of adute
ny?
If the threshold is once passed, there is nc
pouer in this or any other court to shut tho door
1t was not in the power OF the prosecution TO ox.
pertinent wish the Defence aud then when finding
themselves carried beyond their depth fall bach
their rashness importuue the court TO exclude tht
defence from continuing their line Of evidence be-
yond the door which the prosecution had them
selves opened.
i.self2 for that was the real point st issue now
For the purpose CT accomplishing the restraint
urged against the defence, the prosecution ha6
tfsred the doctrine that unless the actual iuspec
tiou of the guilt made by tie prisoner. he had
no right 20 slay the Iaan whom he knew had de-
Powered his wife OF her virtue; that the husband
must see the very fact of adultery, or he muai
stand before this court in the light Of Murderer
So long as adultery is pursued il secret 80 long ii
will be impossible for the husband to have ens
sight towards the a1ulserer OF his wife. The rule
Of evidence WAS that chain of circumstances
directly leading to the points in investigation was
all that wds necessary TO give Justification for any
act Of the husband fuding and pursuing this chau
Greenleaf Evidence, sections IL and 43, il luss
tra,ion Of the proposition.
A great effort was made on the part of the prose
cutiOD to excite prejudice against the defence, foi
the line of proceeding they had set up. Now, iol
himself, no matter what was his private opinioD
he had carefully avoided claiming thst the kilns
in cold blood of the aduterer was justjfiable. H.
had said, and wouid say now, that when hus.
band catches the adulterer OF his wife Ia the aci
OF adultery with that wife, 50 near II 10 leave
ysE an raig Of Yhsa Scs fkR not OF sh-
husband Was but simply the act of the iHstrumen
Of heaven turned towards that aduitorer to exc.
cate lis indignation.
The rule tnat where the husband only finds tbs
aduterer il the act he is justifiable, promu l.
gated nearly two centuries age, aud had References
10 particular act. He denied its applicability {,
general cases.
As in the case OF individuals as in the case O
communities, there were cases where il Was Ne
cesaary to take the law into their own bands fol
their own preservation. We had sn instance IL
Of the States of the Union, III oae of the prin
cpal cities of which the people had so rise Up IL
their might and take into their own hands tht
lava which they had found were being perverted
by those TO whom they had entrusted thsn.
Here the speaker read from the 5sh of Matthew
36th verse, in the Sermon on the Mount, as an H.
lustratIon, the words being used as follows: .'But
say unto you, that whoever looketh wous1
10 lust after her, hath committed adultery with
her already 10 his heart"
He asked the court il the law was benign? was
it mercifui or lenienti This doctrine of the pros
ccutiOn was based mainly upon the case quoted IN
Sd Iredeil. In that case the relation of husband
and wife did not exist It wouli be better fol
justice if our judges would reslrara themselves
from wandering from the cases presented to out
side and extraneous poiuts. The decision In the
quoted utterly excluded the idea of moral III.
sanity.
Iu order to apply that rule TO this the court
must refer to its origin. What were justice, then
They we're mere instruments in the hands of the
court. The jury was BOT then the grand palladium
il is now, aud which be hoped~Glways to see IL
remain. Ii this jury were to pass upon the ques'
tion of Intention would the court exclude al eVi-
deuce going 60 show that intention.
Here the speaker read from Fosters Crown Law
to show that that learned authority, as far back
his time, doubted it's jas.ice, upwards Of seveaIy
years after it's promulgation.
This is the commentary Of ono ofthe highest Eng
lish authorities, and shows that the law hold,
that courts must rigidiy conserve Justice. Has no
the law progressed since the time of Haief TheE
insanity to be effective must have been entire.-
Will not temporary insanity now be effective up.