The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-11-18
Ia W LNTELLHE.VCE.

CRIMINAL CoURT.-HOn. Henry Stump, Judge
Milton Whitney, Esq, States Attorney, prosecu
ing.
Hon. Reverdy Johnson Hon. John Thompso
Mason and 7. Joseph Rogers, Esq, counsel for tn
defence
State Us. Thomas Connery, indicted for the wi
iul murder of his brother John Connerv, on tn
night of the lst of December last, by shooting hir
with pistol, creating mortal wound on the lef
side of the head, from which he instantly died.
On the opening of the Court yesterday morning
the Hon. Reverdy johnson commenced the cosn!
argument upon the part of the defence. He com
years, he had been acquainted with the father O
the unfortunate prisoner, kind man. who had il
many instances, served him in many friendly acts
and for whom he held feelings of friendship and fo
whom, as soon as he heard of the deep distress ant
aifction which had befallen him, he determined t.
assist in his time of need if possible Within shor
time only, he had ascertained that it would be il
his power to offer his services, however humbl,
they might be, and appear in behalf of the unfortu
nate young man who was upon Ills trial, fo
the accidental killing of his brother.
Mr.. johnson paid compliment to the State
Attorney, for the marked ability shown in tie pros
ecution, but begged to differ from him in the inter
probation of the law bearing upon the case.
Mr.. johnson then referred to the arguments O
the prosecuting attorney in regard to the Circum
stan connected with the killing and denied that
any evidence had been produced showing tha
there was any malice afOrethought exhibited by thu
! accused which would make him liable to be con
victed of murder under the statute of 1909 HI
then proceeded to trace the different definitions
| murder referring back to the Common Law of Eng
| land, and then coming to the act denominated the
"Crimes Act" passed in 1909, which defines that
all killing, as by poison lying in wait, or other viii
ful and premeditated killing, shall be termed
| murder in the first degree, and all other
| kind of killing murder in the second de
degree. He denied that the State had shown any
wlltul intention to take life, or that any malice
atorethought existed. The mere fact of killing did
| show q tp os
asserted by the State; but the State must show that
there did exist such malice as is required by the
act OF 1902 to constitute murder in the first degree
| 1t was for the jury to determine from the facts
| whether that intent existed, and besides being the
! judges of the facts they also the Judges of
| the law. The indictment charged that Thomas
| Connery had wilfully, feoniously, and of malice
afOrethOught, killed John COnnery: could the iurv
believe from the evidence that there was any pre-
meditation or malice shown at the time of the
shooting of the pistol? On the contrary the State
had proved that the brothers were upon the most
friendly terms, were in company, and were engaged
in peaceful conversation almost until the time of
shooting; and after showing this could it be said
that the killing premeditated and done with
malice afOrethOught, charged in the indictment?
Mr.. johnson then referred to the testimony of
ered by the defence, to show that the prisoner was
OF insane mind at the time of the firing of the ps-
toll and also to the argument of the State, which
denied such insanity, and that the killing done
in fit of drunkenness, which aggravated the of
and went fully into the law governing cases where
insanity was the plea for an acquittal He made
an eloquent appeal to the jury on behalf of the
prisoner, and, in concluding, said he had no hesa
ion in leaving the case to the jury, whom he be-
lieved, would decide it according to the best die
tates of their conscience.
Mr.. johnson spoke for nearly two hours, and was
followed BY the States Attorney in the concluding
argument for the State.
Mr.. Whitney commenced by saving to the Jury
that in deliberating upon this case, they must d-
vest themselves from all considerations as regarded
the situation OF the prisoner with his family; they
must look to their duty in the premises; to their
oath TAKEN and to the demands of Justice They
had heard appeals made to them for mercy towards
the prisoner, but he would remind them that they
were not in A place where mercy was looked for
they in a temple dedicated to Justice. He
then went on to review the arguments of the de-
fence. 1t had been asserted that the State had
shown no motive for the killing of John Connerv;
but the State held that where life was taken as in
this case, the very act itself showed the intent to
kill-the premedtation, although only for an in
stant to murder. Men must be Judged by their
actions the inmoSt soul of a man cannot be pene-
trated to know what are his thoughts at any one
instant, but by his actions you must Judge of his
motive. If Il man deadly weapon, knowing
the consequences of such use, and thereby commits
murder the intent to kill must be inferred.
Mr. Whitney alluded to the argument of the de-
fence in relation to the condition of the accused at
the time of the killing. in which it was stated that
he had already suffered sufficiently for his crime;
of his agony and distress of mind of his slecplesS
nights and OF his being wanderer in distant parts
OF the land; and said that although personally he
would be willing to see him 90 free from the
Courthouse, and again be in communion with
his distressed family, yet he had a duty to per
form to the State and the community in which
he lived, and the jury had also the same duty
to perform, which would require that justice
here should have its course. The law was made
for punishment and example for evil doers The
laws were not passed for those persons in socie-
tV wi lad nj avid al
their evil practices, but they were made for
those who, not having their passions under
submission, went without the pale of civil
ization and committed offences against society.
1t is to protect society against such these that
penal laws were passed. When the baser passions
obtain sway, and the rules of society intercred
with, then the law interferes and punishment en-
sues. And this is intended as an example to those
who would follow in the same course, to warn them
Of like fate. The prisoner in this case had allow
cd his passions to be aroused in such manner that
he had committed crime against the laws, and,
therefore, must be punished. If he is to be excused
from this crime on the plea of drunkenneSs-tor no
testimony, said Mr.. Whitney, had been produced
to show insanity, such the law rcquires-and he
goes free, you pay premium to drunkenness.
Mr.. Whitney then reviewed the propositions of
the Defence in relation to the insanity of the priS-
Oner. He asked where was the evidence of insanity?
The defence had not shown any, The proposition
of the defence, that the commission of the itself
was evidence of insanity, was denied. He here re-
Wednesday, in which that gentleman had said that
all the cases referred to by the State did not meet
this case because in all Of them there was motive
! lurking beneath, which showed a motive for the
| commission otmurder.
Mr.. Whitney then called the attention Of the
counsel to a case cited by him, in South Carolina
Reports similar to this, where a man had slain his
wife and children, and where there was no motive
! apparent, but where he was convicted of murder.
! Mr.. Whitney read this case fully.
Judge Mason asked if the States Attorney had
! referred to it in his opening.
Mr.. Whitney said he had; that Mr.. johnson had
noted it.
Mr.. Whitney went on and referred to the re.
| marks Of Mr.. johnson to the jury, about their be
ing the Judges Of the law as well as the facts. lie
admitted this, but said, although the jury were
| judges of the law, they %ere not makers of the
! law. If that were the case, what might be law
to-day would not be law next Monday.
Mr.. WhitHey then cOntended that the State haC
shown wilful killing on the part of the accused
| That there was specific intent to take life nc
matter whether the design was formed at the time
OF striking the blow or not. He said that all fht
| cases referred to by the defence were, where thC
party labOring under insanity produced by
! drunkenness, but they had not referred to cast
where a murder was committed in a drunken
frenzy, and the murderer acquitted.
Mr.. Rogers asked if the case of Briscoe no
| one of that kind.
Mr.. Whitney replied that the case of BriscOe haC
not been alluded to in this trial The case had mo-
been reported. He continued and asked what kind
of insanity had the defence shown? When did it
| commence? They had shown nothing more thar
the freaks evinced BY every man in fit of drunken
ness, which all the authorities laid down was no
excuse for crime. He then appealed to the jury tC
divest themselves Of all feelings towards the priso
| ner and his mourning family, and to do their du ty
to the community in which they lived, and whose
| eyes turned upon them. If this man
said he is to be acquitted the ground of ntoxca
| ton, then has there been two judicial murders com
mitted in your city within the year; let out from
your penitentiary those that are now confined there
for crimes done under similar circums tances-thrOv
open the gates of your Jail and let those who arr
now confined there, once more loose upon the com
munity, to enact again those deeds of blood, fol
| which the law now holds them to accountability
Mr.. Whitney then again reminded the jury that
he had no personal feelings to crafty in prosecu
ting the case he was only doing what he consid
cred his duty. He would willingly leave the fate o
the prisoner in the hands of the jury confident tha
| they would render such a verdict as would uphold
| the majesty of the law, and the sacred truths o
justice.
Mr.. Whitney concluded his address at half pas
one o'clock, when the indictment was handed to th
jury.
Judge Stump then directed the jury to retire t.
their hotel and return into Court in the morning
and announced that he about to adjourn.
Mr.. Whitney asked if the Judge would not COM
into Court during the afternoon.
The Judge said he would adjourn until morning
Mr.. Whitney," If the jury should agree within
two or three hours, would your Honor not COM
into Court?"
Judge Stump Ooudly )-''N No, sir
The Judge was about going down from the ros
trum, when he was beckoned to by iuryman.
Juror-"lf we should agree in a reasonable
| time
Judge Stump" That's reasonable time--to
| morrow morning."