New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-04-18
MrRDER OR MANUFACTURER.

case have at last come to issue upon what after all,
is the only substantial controversy in it-whether
the aduIterous intercourse which Mr. Sickles had
detected between Key and Mrs. Sckles justifis I'd
him in killing Key, or, if it did not justify him, to
what extent, if any, it diunishes bis crimin,ity.
After the very elaborate discourses upon these
topics in which the counsel for the prisoner were
allowed to indulge in their opening to the Jury
dscOurses in which the fact OF the adultery was
assumed as the very basis Of the defense-it seems
rather ab,uId for the prosecution to turn round
and to question or deny the right of the defense to
put into the Gaze evidence Of that fact If the
existence Of an sdulterous intercourse between
Mrs. Sickes and Mr. Key did not, in legal point
of view, afford any justification or paatlon of the
act of Sicbles in killing Key, aud if the Jury, in
making up their verdict, have right to take that
fact into account, why were the counsel allowed to
introduce the fact at all and to talk about it to the
jury at .uch length If evidence of this fact
ought to be excluded because it is irrelevant, be-
cause to introduce il would be TO consume, to no
purpose, the time of the Court, because it might
work on the tympathies of the Jury AID draw them
off from that point of view in which alone
they have right TO look at the case,
surely the elaborate addresses of counsel based
wholly on the assumption Of the existence OF that
fact, ought to have been excluded for the same
reason. If the matter of adultery was subject
which could only properly come up sitter the Jury
had discharged their functions, ard when 1t re-
manned for the Executive to decide whether the
sentence consequent upon their verdict should be
mitgated or wholly RENTED why allow counsel
to talk to the Jury by the day on that very point
And how does it mend the matter after counsel
have been allowed to assume, and alege, and argue
upon, the fact of adultery, to refuse to allow them
to prove itl That very refusal must Inevitably
amount, in the minds Of the Jury, to an admission
Of the fact on the part Of the prosecution.
Whether the Judge shall admit or exclude any fur
Their evidence tending to that point, the fact of
the adultery and that it led to the killing, is Just
as much at this moment before the Jury, il is be-
fore the public. AL this controversy about the ad-
instability of evidence might better be dispensed
with. As to the saving of time, the lawyers con-
sumo much more time in debating the question OF
aimissibilily, than the witnesses would in telling
their story; and as to excluding any fact or al
legged fact which may be thought important to the
prisoner from the contemplation Of the Jury, that
is impossible, so long counsel, in opening case,
are allowed free scope to suggest to the Jury what
ever they please Besides, why treat the Jury
Ike children unable to discriminate, even with the
aid of the Judge, between such facts as ought to
influence their judgment and such as ought not
In the actual position of the case the decision to
which the Judge may come on the question OF
evidence of no sort of consequence, except so far
es il may foreshadOw the instructions which he will
awe to the Jury to guide them in framing their
gerdict. AS bearing upon this point three positions
yre assumed. The prosecution admit that, had
Sickles found KEY in the act of adultery with Mrs.
Sickes the killing would not have been murder,
but manslsughter. But to make such killing
msuslaushter, il must, as they contend, take place
on the Impulse of toe moment, without premedita-
ton and without any time for passion to cool.
The defense, 10 reply TO this doctrine, take two
very distinct positions one of which may be distn-
gusbed as Mr.. Gratam's, the other as Mr.. Brady's.
Mr. Grahams position may be said to be entirely out
side of the law. According to bis view this question
of adultery is ore which the Law does not embrace
within It's cognizance, and 10 which men are left
10 state Of nature. That being the case, the in
jured husbstd has the right to proceed to kill the
adulterer and the criminal law mas no warrant to
call him to account or at least to punish him for it,
The passion and frenzy into which husband is
thrown by such discovery ought TO be regarded,
according to Mr. Graham, as the mode which the
Almighty has adopted of turning that husband into
His instrument for carrying out the Judgment which
He, though not the law, has denounced against the
adul;erer But who is to punish the guilty woman,
equally denounced by the law Of God Has the
husband the right TO kill her, too Take another
case. Suppose that Key had been armed, that he
had returned Sickles's first fire. and had killed him
instead Of being killed himself. In what legal po-
sition would he have stood The criminal who
kills tie Sheriff, while attempting to hang him IN
der legal sentence, is guilty Of murder. Would
Key have been equally guilty in resisting the Al
mshiy's appointed eIecutioDerl Wa il his legal
duty to submit quietly to be killed by Sickesl or
would that question also have been beyond the cog
nzsnce of the law Or suppose that, in attempt
ing to Kill Key, Sickles had accidentally killed some
body else. How would he stand as to that homi-
eide
The ground taken by Mr.. Brady appears to be
much more plausible and much more rational. He
does not undertake to remove this case out Of the
jurisdiction Of the municipal law, or to place Mr..
Sckles in IL position Of the selected instrument of
the Almighty for the punishment Of Key, and on