Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1860-08-25
rHr FIaI-srRrET uoMIcIpE.

in tne III 81 Vi yesleIuhy We gave Illl
and accurate report Of the testimony elected
before Judge Lowe, upon the examination
of George J. CALDWELL for the homicide of
Charles o. Browne, Esq, which took place
on the 14th inst, at No. 167 Elm-street. The
Judge delivered his decision yesterday morn
ing, and we herewith publish ii in full.
During the delivery of the decision the
defendant sat with downcast eyes, looking
somewhat pale and care-worn, and seemed
to be suffering from a mental depression
that could not be overcome. He scarcely
seemed to breathe, and the courtroom was
as silent as the halls Of death. Immovable
he sat as O statue, and at the close of the
last paragraph O long sigh escaped appar-
emily from the depths of his nature, but he
betrayed no disappointment, and was evil
IDENTIFY prepared for the result.
AT the opening Of the Court the defendant
was brought in, and the Judge spoke as fol-
lows:
'sTestimony has been heard upon an affida-
Wit charging the defendant with manslauEh-
ter, and am now TO determine whether,
upon this evidence, the defendant shall be
held to answer the charge before the Court
Of Common Pleas.
'In passing upon this case, il is material to
remember that the duty imposed upon this
Court is essentially different from that de-
volyed upon traverse jury in the trial Of
an indictment. In that case, the party is to
be convicted only upon full and satisfactory
proof of guilt, all reasonable doubts being
resolved in favor of innocence.
"In this proceeding have only to deter
mine whether a probable case Of guilt is
shown by the testimony-l am not to re-
solve doubts in favor of the defendant-and
if a homicide has been committed by the
defendant, and that homicide is not plainly
| iustifable, the accused must be held to
make further answer to the charge.
"Without dwelling upon the previous rela-
| tions of the parties, about which there is no
| conflict of testimony, it appears that at the
| time of the homicide, the deceased sustained
friendly relations with the wife of the de-
| fendant and her daughter; called upon them
| net seldom, at defendants house, but that
| unfriendly feelings existed on the part OF
defendant to the deceased, the defendant
having, for several months, refused to re-
cognize or speak to him.
| "The principal witness, Miss Merriwea-
ther, speaks of the deceased having intimate
relations with the family, as being "more
one of the family than either friend OF
visitor" He was at the time of his death
and for some years previous, the business
manager of defendants wife and children.
ut seems that on the evening previous to
that of the fatal rencounter, the deceased had
called at the door Of Defendants house, and
short walk was proposed by Miss Merri-
weather with Mr., Browne, the defendants
wife accompanying them. After they had
| gone few steps from the door they were
called back by defendant. Mr.. b., it would
seem, became incensed at this, and pursued
defendant through his house and into thu
street, having forced aside door of the hous,
to reach him. The parties next met on tht
evening of the homicide. All. -,- -tH
'Tt appears that the deceased came to de
fendonts house, spoke to Miss Merriweathel
on the steps, and with some haste, as de-
scribed by one witness, and without appar
ent excitement, as related by another
passed into the house, meeting defendant il
the hall or in the parlor, expressed wisl
to have few moments conversation will
him. The defendant replied that he did moi
wish to see him, and Immediately turned
from him, retreated to the hall, and through
the hall up the stairs with rapid steps, fol
lowed rapidly by the deceased.
"After they left the hall, going up stairs
no one saw them until after the fatal sho
was fired. When the shot was fred, parties
went to the chamber, and found deceased
upon the bed in room Immediately at thl
head of the stairs, in dying condition, ant
defendant standing over him, who said: Sc,
what have done.' In few moments Mr.
Browne expired. The fatal shot seems t
have been given with new pistol, which M
one had ever seen him have before; nor doe
it appear that he had ever before beer
known to have q weapon. The deceased
had no arms, but carried his usual walking
stick-a small fancy cane.
"That the deceased came to his death from
pistol shot at the hands of the defendant
is not controverted, but it is claimed tha
the act of the defendant was one of self
defense. 1t is claimed that he was assaile(
in his own house-pursued to the wall-tha
his life or bodily safety was imminently i'm
periled, and that he took the life of the de
ceased justifably, to save himself from bod
lily harm;
case was it necessary for the defendant
own safety to take the life of the deceased
or do the circ instances show that he ha
good reason so to believe?
| lsT "Whatever may, have been the purpose
of the deceased in visiting the defendants
house on that evening, think il is eviden
that his purpose, from the time of thei
meeting in the parlor, were hostile fowar
u the defendant. Although il is stated b.
Miss Merriweather that there were no De
! monstrations -of-%iolenec ir the pdrIor OF i
I the hall, the pursuit was undoubtedly hos
tile. But was the defendant in imninen
peril2 He was not, so far as appears, as
sailed by any deadly weapon. He was pun
sued in menacng manner by a man not O
all his superior, but rather his inferior /
physical powers. He was not assaiIed by
stranger whose abilities he might be ignoI
ant Of, but by an acquaintance, unarmed.
Il "There is some uncertain proofas TO mark
of violence upon the door, upon which littl
can be predicated. Certainly, but little al
p teTcation can have been had at the door
! the chamber, for all the witnesses speak {
The shot as following almost momentaril
4 npsn their getting to the room. Nor can
be true, as suggested, that the door wa
forced ~ the foot Of the deceased, for n
violence has'been suffered by the fastening
/ of the door. ! 10 q ''-i IN ~ F'+.
"The guilt or innocence Of this defendal
j rests upon acts Of the parties at the chambt
! when they were removed fsom all observi
ton. What was the character of the assau
/, 1 there made what efforts of defense wei
7 made before the last dread act of taking II
was resorted to2 No mortal eye hns seen tn
but those engaged in the conflict. 40
Il "These controlling and all-important fac
\ are TO be inferred from the conduct of Il
4 parties Immediately previous, the surrount
/ ing circumstances, and the position in whiC
a they were subsequently found. 5r5g grg
= 'It may be that the defendant was
! fnriously assailed that he could only prote
himselfa at The expense of the assailant's Ill
4 But 1t Is not clear that such is the case,
\ has escaped from the rencounter with slig
4 bruises, while his adversary unarmed and
q inferior physical force, has been slain,
4 at is here to be conceded that the deceasl
a was in fault. The very nature of the char
) | made-manslaughter the deeeas'
a to be in the wrong-for if he had been tn
=. ,,,s,,csnIv slain xvithaut fanh IL would