The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1867-02-15

constitute murder. there mnst be mnliec
with the unlawful killing. in manslauglt.
Dr.. il is un unlawful killing without malice.
Dur statute has also added 10 this list the
killing Of u human being in the
isat OF passion or on sudden proyocation.
without express or implied malice aforc
thought.
have thus passed over, succinctly and
as can, the leading features and
Of those crimes arising iron
homicide. am aware that, however care
fully aud distinctly stated, il will he difficult
for you 10 rcnleinbcr all of them from onc'
stating, but other specific instructions to IL
given you will supply any defect of memo
~ or understanding you may have. so tar
as they may apply to this case. With these
views of the law, you will turn your atten.
ton TO Tie facts proved in the case. -.
I. IL Is necessary the government should
prove the death Of Charles NJ. SWEET.
This fact is testified to by number OF wit
nesses, and It is not denied that he died on the
I'D day Of September, 1866, At the prisoners
house, occupied by him and her and their lam
ily, in Rennebunk. in this county.
II. The next important inquiry arises In re
latiun 10 the cause VI his death.
Upon this point you have two kinds OF evi:
lence: one consists Of facts. appearing and
existing, before, at the time, and amer his
death, and the other consists OF the opinions
Of the Medical men upon various subjects. and
hypothetical questions prupounded 10 them.
Ordinarily witnesses nre not allowed to give
opinions. To this rule, however, there arc
some exceptions. Persons by education and
observation may acquire q knowledge OF Ger
tain matters, not possessed by men generally.
and may under certain circumstances be allow
ed to give an opinion upon such matters. The!
are denominsted In law, experts. In the cas-
nov under examination, medical men have beer
examined rs such.
Evidence of this kind In such cases as the on
you are now considering, has frequently bec'
resorted to when the facts appearing TO huma,
observation and occurring at or near the dealt
of the party are insufficient to satisfy the min.
of the cause OF death. The other facts prove
leaving the miud In doubt rs to the cause
whether of kind, or sufficient force, courts ar
sometimes compelled to resort to tbs kind q
evidence.
In this case two causes have been suggested
10 account for the death Of DIR. SWEET Thu
government and the prisoner each present dit
ferent theories In relation to the immediate
cause OF death.
The government allege the cause TO DO the
OF a quantity Of morphine In a
Of alcoholic liquor.
The defence, not denying there was morphine
thus administered In some quantity. allegc II
was the alcoholic liquor which produced the
death. Each Of these substances i Is admitted
had been taken into the system . short time be-
fore his death.
In determining the question which Of these
CAUSED the death, you may consider the char,
actsr Of each, the amount OF each taken, ana
the time which elapsed AFTER the taking before
the fatal symptoms were manifest, II Is con-
coded these substances are both OF them In some
measure poisonous one requiring much more
In quantity and volume than the other, to pro-
duce fatal results.
How much alcohol Is required ordinarily to
produce fatal results, We have not stated clear
liz according to my recollection, perhaps from
the great variety OF proof or strength In whlcl,
il IL usually found, and perhaps from It's varied
and different influences upon different persons.
The amount Of morphine which will ordnari
Ia produce fatal results Is more definitely stat
ell /; heing administered rs q medicine and only
In very small quantities, II Is much easier to as.
certain and define the ordinary limits OF safety
in its administration. 1t Is also, however, In
proof that even this drug may DO received into
The system in larger quantities by persons nc.
10 its use. That the amount safely to be taken
IS varied by the habits Of the person to whom
In the previous use OF IT..
II would be we'll To look ut the evidence and
II you can the amount OF each OF
these substances taken into the system near the
time Of his death.
II is quite apparent that for year or more
he deceased hal used Intoxicating liquors to
Excess. To what excess or extent Is somewhat
The government say never 81 rs
10 incapacitate him from business. The defence
IN the other hand say, that u rds cnrrled 70
that extent, and that he sometimes needed the
assistance Of others. There Is some testimony
10 this case OF that character, coming from Mr..
Hall, which you will recollect. The govern
nent however say that these habits had not
,eusihly injured the man, and that the post
norton examination proves his system hau
the effect Of such habits unharmed.
The defence however say that his death did
not result from the effects OF these more carly
practices, but the effect was that ut more re-
,cnt origin, and Constitutes q case OF acute
,oIsonfng. by alcohol. -.
The amount taken Immediately before MS
leath must in some measure be CLEANED from
There is evidence tending to
how that he went TO the village on Saturday
,yepinr, That he came home some time In the
anne evening, and lay upon the sofa that night.
What he brought home no one think tcstities,
nut early in the morning his adopted daughter
sarah says she saw him going to the stable. She
links he went TO the stable, from about nan
,ast In the morning to about half past ], three
lines. That by the prisoners direction she went
q the stable and found In the stall pint bottle,
n which there remained about gill Of whiskey.
This she brought In, and the prisoner turned
into It and directed her to rarryit
Jack where she found 1t and watch the deceased.
The saws she did, and saw the deceased 90 into
he stall and remain awhile, and then come out
md break the bottle and throw Il away. II the
,o,,Ic was full in the morning, the quantity Ia
zen during the three hours was one pint from
hat bottle. Whether II was or not full, does
lot certainly appear. The government say that
il was filed at the village the night before, II
, not unlikely but probable he took some OF II
,efore lying down, aud assert there Is no PROOF
IT, had II full, or indeed purchased any Saturday
light. The defence, however, say the cireum'
tanecs are sufficient to- warrant you In conclud.
No he went TO the village for the purpose, and
hat when seen by Sarah In the morn'ngto 60 to
he stable, II was for the purpose Of drinking
rom the bottle.
From the evidence upon the subject consisting
" facts testified to, and circumstances made ap.
,areut to you, you will determine how much Of
his substance he took into his system Sunday
morning, and even during the week previous.
That morphine In some quantity was taken In.
q the system at the same time the last dIanght
II whiskey was taken, 10 not contested by the
defence, but they say II was not the cause OF his
lrath. The government say II irds the cause OF
,is death, and as one evidence Of u they call
,our attention TO the short space Of time which
iap,cd between taking II and the appearance Of
stal symptoms. Upon this question Of time you
ave the testimony Of Sarah and OF Owen IL.
stevens. -