The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1859-04-12
WASHINGTON, Monday. Al

J
-
WASHINGTON, Monday, April 1lth.
Such anxiety to be present at the trial to day
ex listed, that the court room was filled before the
doore were opened, by obtaining entrance through
the windows.
The points passed by Mr.. Graham In his speech
Saturday, were: Erss-That the government was
bound TO make out case. second-That malice
was not to be presumed, but proved Ttird-How
far adultery is to be considered as provocation.
Fourth-Why such crime under the old common
law was not murder, but msnslaughter. Fifth
why the extinction of pririligium clerical, the
slight burning in the hand which was the punishs
ment in such a case, is tantamount to acquitta.
S,zth-Whether the frenzy natural to husband
under such circumstances, does not operate as
mental unsoundness. Seventh-This point Mr.
Graham would consider to day, namely, whether
viewing the case as one of uugovernable passion,
there was sufficient time for de PENDANTS passion to
COOL and for reason to get the better of his trans
port of passion, and whether his subsequent &C
were deliberate before the mortal wound vas
given.
Judge Crawford took his seat at 1920 o'clock
half hour afterwards, Mr.. Sickles was conducted
into court.
Mr.. G raham resumed:
lie said he fast approaching the close of his
present duty His interest in the case must be bis
excuse for the length of This speech. lie had shown
that human laws do not reach all cases of wrong
That the omission to provide against this wrong,
was simply to turn US to our natural ins
stiDcts, as to the relations between man and his
wife, parent and his child. Nature had marked
out the duties of protection-which not only are
not criminal in their discharge, but which we ere
bound to observe. An invitation to o friend to
partske of mans hospitality, implied an under
standing that lust for his wife or daughter would
be banished, and that to come asa friend, whileat
heart foe, constituted abuse of the license to
enter the dom ain. He had suggested whether the
wife consented to give away her chastity or not as
between the husband and the adulterer or ravish>
err, the husbands rights were the same-and, that
morally speaking, the wife the property of the
husband. He had considered how the bible and
the common law regarded adultery. When the
bible made adultery so high crime, it was fair to
presume our minds were framed with correspon~
ding perception of wrong. In other words, when
the Almighty had portrayed adultery as so helm
Gus an offence, he invested Us with that quality
of mind which enables us to look upon it iu the
same heineus light in which he has exhibited it.
The law of all reasoning is this: that the power
ability to understand and appreciate it. He re-
ferred to the old judges who said jealousy is the
highest rage of man, and adultery the greatest
provocation that can be given him.
In regard to the crmnalty of Sickles'
act, his counsel understand the basis
fan his accountability, to be in the possession of
that amount of reasoning power which enables
man to see the right way, and that amount of will
which enables him to pursue it; the intention or
will is the principle which gives life to crime 1t
was no matter how his unsoundness of mind was
produced, provided it existed. Mr.. Sickes was not
party to the origin of the provocaion which acted
so fearfully upon him. He stood entirely clear of
the conduct of the aduterer, aud had never conni-
we'd at it. Counsel had shown that whenever mental
unsoupdness was set up as question for a jury,
it was whether the cause which produced it was
sufficient to produce it, and had cited cases to the
point, which had occurred in this court, in which
the Judge had ruled that it, from the evidence the
jury found the facts to the truth of illegiti
mate child three months after marriage, and as to
the fact of the prisoners mind becoming diseased
thereby, it was an unwarranted unsouud delusion,
which increased in intensity until his mind became
diseased thereby; and if in such a paroxysm of
csuseless rage his power of distinguishing de-
stroyed or suspended, and he committed the act as
charged, he was not guilty of murder. Shame was
one, and only one of the emotions. crowding Sick
les mind, and that was the law which the defence
intended to enforce on the jury. child, born up-
der such circumstances, could not compare with
the modification and shame of having mans wife
defcwered. Counsel also cited other cases in this
court the point. Counsel also asked if brother
who voluntarily assumes the redress of the wrongs
of sister, stands excused by verdict of jury be
cause the proyocation was too much to bear, on
hat principles could the distinction be drawn in
the case of husband aveDging an outrage on his
marriage relations? There was deliberatiou on
the part of Sickles. He spread no bait for the de-
ceased draw him to his death. The very ferocity
of his attack on Key, showed the feelings of frenzy
rage and jealousy under which he committed the
deed. Could reason add its sway in this case.
amid the battle of SO many uncomfortable passions?
Mr.. G. went on to contend that with Mr. Sickles
there was no cooling time. A whole life would
not suffice to alsy the passions aroused by wrong
like that received by him. 1t was the adulterous
intent of Key which had thrust him on the
avenger. He had met the adulterer. His eyes
lighted upon him :and, under the influence Of that
frenzy which no human being could resist, the
prisoner had slain him. lie would now pro.
coed state the facts in the case previous to sub.
hitting it to the jury, at least, far the OPEN
ing of the defence was concerned. He the spea.
kerr was q married man; had around him those
monuments which should have reminded HIM that |
he would resent that invasion Of his own |
marriage bed which had been Inflicted on the |
prisoner. He was lawyer, and belonged to that |
profession which, with the exception of the pal-
pitt should, above all Others be filled by virtuous
men. Yet, if he had come into court in the garb |
of hypocrite, and in the public character of por.
scouting attorney, had hunted down criminals no |
worse than himself, with extraordinary success |
Who was the woman in this casel She was one |
young enough to be the daughter of Key She |
unused to the guiles of the world, and almost
too young to understand the duties of wife, |
Who was the prisoner? He was the representa-
a. e H.
mercial metropolis Of the country. A man who |
had met and treated Key as his friend. |
He had even interceded to have Key appointed |
to the position which he disgraced. Key had gone
what is called gaantry, had dishonored his wife.
1t would be shown that early in March, 1857, |
the prisoner was informed that the deceased was |
him. Sickles wrote to Key in refe- |
renee to it. The fact denied by the latter he
at the same time stating that he would call to the
"feld of honor" the man who dared to make such |
a charge. But two weeks before his death he had
attended dinner party at the residence
of Mr.. Sickles, and had taken his sister Mrs
Pendietop) with him. He took his sister to the
house of his prostitute, for such was the woman |
who bassly deceived her husband. Mr.. G. then |
proceeded to state the circumstances connected
with the receipt OF an anonym letter by Sickles,
and the ultimate confession OF the guilty wife,
Behold the cunning of Key In getting house for
the purpose of meeting Mrs. eickles, in locality |
where only blacks resided He knew that what |
blacks saw and heard, could not be repeated In |
court. Woodbridge was commissioned to watch |
the house referred to. He learned enough to know
that the woman who entered IL was the wife of
eickles. It was then that the prisoner lost ell
hope. He no longer doubted the guilt of his
wife.
Mr.. @. detailed the interview between Mr.. Sic
kies and Woodbridge, which took place after his
wife had written confession Of her guilt. Sub.
sequent to the receipt of the confession, there |
was nothing In the Conduct of Sickles which
vonid show thai the state of hia mind mada Mir |
hardly 10 anything different from the brute crea.
ton; What must have been the anguish of
sickles?
1t would be shown BY the defence that the |
waving OF the handkerchief before the house of |
Key being seen from, the house on the Sunday Of /
bis death and the subsequent fatal meeting was |
elciuentIy detailed By ar. g. From these facts |