The Portland daily press., 1867-02-11


The trial Of Mrs Jane M SWEET, of Kenne-
bunk, for homicide in causing the death of her
husband by administering to him morphine
occupied the Supreme Judicial Court at Saco
the whole of last week. Judge Tapley presid-
ed. AS neither Mr.. Peters, the old Attorney
General, nor Mr.. Frye, the new one, were able
to attend, the prosecution was conducted BY
Hon. Charles w. Goddard, of this city, at their
request, ana by appointment by the Court, with
whom was associated Mr.. Kimball, County At
torney for York. The defence was managed
by L. ID. Hubbard and Hampden Fairfield,
Esquires. -1o
The evidence for the State was all put in by
Thursday noon. The proof was incontestible
that Mrs SWEET had mixed morphine in the
whiskey her husband drank, and soon after
partaking of it, one Sunday morning, he sank
away and died. 1t was also in proof that there
had been repeated quarrels between the hus-
band and wife, and that she had made threats
against his life.
SWEET, by the hand of her daughter, admins
tered morphine to her husband; but it was de-
MED that his death was caused by morphine
1t was contended, that, as rum was the cause
of the quarrels, so rum was the cause of his
death. The whole theory of the defence is en-
bodied in the opening address of Mr.. Fairfield
to the jury, of which the following is synop-
sis:
Dr. SWEET was in early life an operative in a
factory. He experienced religion, as the term
goes, and entered upon the duties of Freewill
Baptist minister, but his habits were such as
obliged him to give up that position. He then
moved to Kennebunk and commenced the prac-
tice OF medicine, without any previous study,
and only such experience as he had gained from
his father, who was horse doctor. His intem-
perate habits grew upon him, till in the later
years OF his life he came home frequently in
toxicated, greatly disturbing the peace of his
family, which family but for his vicious habits
would nave been to-day so far as he is concern
ed happy and unbroken. ..Intemperance led
him into other vices, in consequence of which
he came home to his wife with a disease which
Will sufficlently explain the reason she would
not sleep with him. He also became addicted
20 E. tne nap,t OF taking morphine in large guam
tlues. "A year ago the coming spring, through
the influence of his wife, he Joined the Good
Iemplars, a temperance society at Kennebunk
port. lie attempted to reform. The accustom
ed STIMULATING effects of liquor being thus TAX
en- from the Draln ne was in great danger of de-
hrium tremens, and was obliged to take NOR
phine in larger doses than ever, taking so much
sometimes as to produce intoxication All this
was known by his wife, and it also came to her
knowledge that whenever he took morphine
and vomited.
She then tor the first time conceived the idea
OF giving him morphine when he was drunk,
tfor ne did not keep his pledge), for the purpose
OF causing MN to throw up the liquor from his
stomacn, anu mus sober him. She did after
wards give it to him when intoxicated, with the
same design and met with the desired result.
This was without his knowledge. Int upon her
telling him the next day what She did, he re-
piled to her, 1T was the best thing YOU could
have done to get the id stuff out of me-" She
again gave 1t to him with the same purpose and
result. And upon the 23d of Sentember last
she again administered morphine. with the
same intent and no other, and expected again
to meet with the same result We shall also
show that there is no drug SO completely under
the influence of habit as morphine-and those
accustomed to the use of it can eat with impu-
nifty sufficient to kill from fifty to one hundred
men. linen wnat would be an overdose for one
not accustomed 10 lts use would not be to one
VINO was accustomed to it. The evidence as to
the amount will be that she gave him Sent. %.
no more than she had given him before. and no
more than she had seen him eat voluntarily.
Then the amount given him SUNDAY morning
not being an overdose, she having no knowi-
edge that 1T would prove fatal. and her knowl-
edge of its effects not being such MS would lead
her to suppose it would prove fatal. and her in
tent being to benefit and not to iniure him
her act OF administering it could not have been
unlawful, and she is not guilty of manslaughter,
for you will remember that to constitute man.
slaughter, death must result collaterally to an
unlawful act. fff rF s,1H