Daily national Republican. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1862-1866, 1865-07-17
EXIT RA.
Trial of Miss Mary Harris
for the Murder Of A. j.
Burroughs.
MR.. VOORHEES, TO SPEAK ON
WEDNESDAY.
The Arguments to Commence
.as,arr Tomorrow.
The Case will Probably be Closed
On Wednesday.
District Supreme COurt-...Criminal Term.
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE wYLrB PRESIDING.


Continued from the First bdiuoh'I
mr. Bradley, In support OF ms PIaSo's' s","
he would not consume tho time Oh tho cout' An
citing authorities In supporter MS nrS' Praso',
but he would heap them ail In mass, anu 'no
genticmen could not select one tespeo'@p'o hu-
thority but what would hrst sustain ms PraSo'
Mr.. D. quoted hetealf' p ooo' ana saiu III oruer W
constitute crime the person oharseo mus oc
possessed OF suhleient power OF reason 70 d.s'
unguish risht rom wrong anu uhuc's'auu 'no
reia'ion ne OF she poats 70 o'ners, anu Voo Ve'o"
70 Do respohs'Dio ior ms or hor ae's ne mus
also have reason sumeieh' 70 unoerS'"uu 'n"' ne
win bo liable TO punishment Tor 'he crime.
from the facts In connection with the 'eS'iiony
It appears that the accused 3 viii was " 'no
time controlled py disease Oh inc minu thVn 'no
defendant Is entitled TO an scqui''al' ar. braa
ley referred TO the case OF !ohn, urea IN tnis
court In 1854 The Judge entered eiaootNe'
into the two principles now presented TO 'he
Court, and he came to the same conclusions AZ
theso we contend should prevail In this case
Mr.. d. also quoted the case OF DeVlins, tried In
this oonrt In 1883. He referred to the decisions
Of Judge Crawford in both theso cases In support
Of his argument. In some eascs 1t was hold that
the burthen OF proof fell upon the defoneo, but
this case Il devolyed on the prosecution TO prove
that the accused was OF sane mind at the timo OF
the commission OF the act, and 1t must DO proven
beyond doubt. The prosecution must provo
every fact material to the act beyond doubt or
| the shadow Of q doubt
II the defence proves diseased or dlsordered
mind, tho burden OF proof Is thrown upon tho
prosecution. II there Is doubt aS to the sanity
or the prisoner, OF doubt that the act was com
| mitted with malice aforethought-andin In this case
was the act committed with malice aforethought
tho accused must 20 out OF this court free Jus
| tice demands her aequittal. Nothing can take
from the rule, was the crime committed with
| malice aforethoughtr Was the prisoner capable
| Of controlling her aetsH II at the time tho act
| charged the party was incapable OF having NAL
Ice aforethought she cannot be held guilty OF the
| offence. He referred to the testimony OF DR.
| Nichols. The great question In this case was
| was the accused capable OF having malice afore-
| thought at tho time she committed tho act' Was
she capable OF controlling her acts at that timcf
Mr.. Bradley spoke for more than an hour In
| support OF his argument. lie quoted from many
authorities, and was listened TO with the greatest
interest He ended his address TO tho court NJ
half past twelve o'clock, at which time tho court
took recess for twenty-five minutes
At one O'Clock the Court rcassembIod, when
Mr.. Wilson, for the prosecution, commenced his
| argument on the prayers Tor the prosecution aud
reply TO Mr.. bradloy' on his argument as to
tho burthen OF PROOF ana the sanity OF tho ac-
cuSed. lie hrst read from Bech's Medical Juris'
prudence edition OF 1861, page y and Archibald 5
Criminal pieadingS and Practice, page 70. Mr..
W. argued the question at some length, contend
| ing 'ha' inc prosecution hSd followed the osthb-
lshcd rulinB OF the courts II was Incumbent on
tue defeheo TO furnish satisfactory evidence OF
the INSANITY OF the accused, as they would nave
10 prove IN tno deionco OIL any other case or to
provo 'he iaets In any deienee' Ihe question did
not uo'o''o upon 'ho prosecution uh''Ss was
SHOWN 'onolu''roy w '"o H'0useu. ne rc"u
from A'her'0an Or'ih'h"' Law anu sla'ed every
person was suppUSou 10 Oo S"n' un''i '"S eon
"' OO Pio,0a p'yonu " re"S'n"",o uo"o''
| c,a,,o o,.Ins, ~. S,,,o pnrLari, r,,,,In.I pa
norts vo1 a naao soO ,,h,ch s,s,a. ,ho "no.,,on
ryinaonT,v 80 ,hIn 10 ho ,s,,oI
and wa ara pot IA prs.ums what ha. not hson
- mr.. Io,a.aI, nI' 80 ~, ..., -
npa ofro, an ,nstrrct,on .sting vorr Lano, 10 In
.,rrct Tho ,nrv ,o .rorI, ,,hon no,, havo mo-,
proved n Tho reason,pv and Ina ,ntborlt,o. unon
our view ftbo proseeutlonl ostabli.h The fairno,s
and tba ,nstics al tho instructions asked hv ,ho
pr,,coutop Mr. w roferred 10 ,ho ,aso botors
tho CIreuit Court NJ mi. Distrot tho ESQ n, ho
United State. again,. Polov
| II she knew before abe went in tho ,rssonco n,
the deceased what the consequence, ~ tho roeot.
Ipu would be. and armed bar.oIf with a n,s,oI
and then went into nj, nrs.cnoa aha shorId ho
,orn5 gr,Itv n, mrrd.r "a .,nnor, ,h,. .r,,,,
mon, he ysfs,,ad 10 wharton a s,uIv,. ModI..,
| Judro Hughes Tor defepee, foI,ousd Mr. Wi.