Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1865-07-18
LOCAL NEWS.
THE MARY HARRIS TRIAL.

When our report tor the first edition closed,
the Court had taken recess.
At fifteen minutes past one the court reas-
sembied.
Judge Hughes, for the defense, commenced
his argument, stating first that it was essential
that the jury should understand the issue they
were to try. The indictment is for murder,
which includes the minor crime of nanslaugh-
ter. If the crime committed in sudden
heat they M ht find her guilty of manslaughter.
She had pleaded not guilty, and the Govern
ment should prove all the material facts be-
yond a shadow of a doubt. This was either
murder or no offence at all. The accused is
woman, and the prosecution in opening the
case had warned the jury against sympathy or
mercy, advising them that the prerogative OF
clemency was lodged elsewhere. He said that
she had manifested q savage disregard of hu-
man life, and pronounced it most afro
cious murder. 1t was not that the defend
dict III aeq &Hti She is Without kinfoks,
but is not without friends, who she has
made by her unpretending merit. He would
ask her acquittal because she was innocent,
and ii was her right. When q prosecution
seeks to conviction on mere technical grounds,
and when they saw behind the prosecution
party representing private vengeance, such
prosecution seldom fails to be supported by
law or evidence. She comes here helpless, in
the hands of a powerful Government, whose
duty is to enforce the law, &c. but not in vim
dictlyeness or persecution. The representa-
tive OF the Commonwealth is presumed to come
into court unbiased in the spirit of the law,
which says it is better for ninety nine guilty
persons to escape than innocent one to be
punished. Before one word had been said in
relation to the character of the deceased, he
stated that his character was unblemished. He
thought that there was some moving power in
this cause, and it was not long before the pro-
blem was solved, when the prosecution put on
the stand the principal prosecuting witness.
The counsel who had just closed, gave his
theory, which was jealousy arising from dis
appointment in love. He bodily stood up and
denied that there had been an engagement of
marriage, having been counse1ed by the pri-
vate prosecutor. He says that they never
were engaged. The statement OF the theory
that they had a quarrel, and the engagement
was broken off, was a sufficient refutation He
speaks OF punishment which is good for the
guilty, but is administered in sorrow. Who
is the man who trifies with female honor,
causes the poor girl to be drawn from her
and toyish pistol. She was the instrument in
the hands of God, and He took away her
reason. She stands unaccountable to human
laws.
He also said something Of attacks on the de-
ceased. One of the painful duties of a counsel
Is to bring out facts derogatory to the deceased.
He would not have brought these statements
out il he could have helped it, The character
OF man If it stood the best would shine
brighter, and knowing this they would not
have made an unwarranted attack on his men,
ory.- The sworn evidence in the cause attacks
him, his own letters, his inhuman cruelty when
he sought to desert this poor girl, his anony-
NOUS letters attack him and one who sought TO
sustain him in his wrongs, the pratner of cruel
t., and he might say his own guilt had
attacked, and the jury had more to show that
Rev. John g. Burroughs was responsible for
the death of the deceased than they had that
this poor girl was. A doctor of divinity when
the policeman said he could get away the pros
utute for few hundred dollars did not say
word OF disapprobation.
If this trial does not d-n him with his con-
gregation, then commend him (the speaker) to
the public sentiment in Chicago. They did
intend to attack this mans testimony and he
believed q Just God will attack him.
Mr. Hughes here read 4 hypothetical case
embracing the facts in this case condensed pre-
pared by DIR. Nichols, and asked if there was
enough stated there to create a suspicion that
frenzy mounted by the side Of reason and held
her hands so that she would not be q RESPONSE
BILE being. The new statement was enough.
From the evidence, all of which he heard Dr.
Nichols had stated, that the killing of Mr.. Bur-
rcughs was from an insane impulse.
She was insane in the manner they claimed
sane impulses. The testimony of DIR. Nichols
met the question fairly, but the counsel on the
other side had not met it. DIR. Nichols was a
mad doctor; his testimony broke down the
and had DIR. May, as common sense doctor,
and he agreed with Dr. Nichols. DR.. Johnson
gave similar testimony.
Mr. Hughes here read from Rays Medical
Jurisprudence, p. 66, to show who should be
taken "a witnesses on a case where insanity
was pleaded, and he commended that just such
testimony as the work referred to the defense
had given. The defense marched right up to
the issue, and~he- said the act was the result of
an insane impulse He would not take up the
time OF the court to show wherein the author
differed entirely from the District Attorney as
TO mad doctors. Mr.. Wilson had labored 10
show that this lady had come here with pre-
meditatad purpose to Kill this man. The cita-
tons CT law he made were against her The
writ was ont for him in Chicago; he could not
be found, but afterwards he was in Chicago
for two or three weeks as testified by his
brother, but the officer could not find him. y
= Why did he leave his wife on the way to Chi
cageg Because he WA conscious land con-
science make towards Of us ALL that he had
wronged this poor girl Mr.. Wilson referred
to her apprehension about meeting with Bur-
roughs alone. She wanted the lawyer (Davis)
o come h re with her, because, as she said, she
would become excited and agitated W, n
she saw him. Could any one suppose that she