Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-02-15

which is OF this kind. The law nowhere saws
that you can lind n man guitless when he
shoots q man after that man has been paid mon.
ey TO cease the intimacy. He would now leave
the cgse with the jury.
Mr.. Wilson, in conclusion, referred TO the in
stIuctons of the court in the case of Zimmer
MI. Iavldge said that in view of the fact that
the law had been settled, and the matter had
been narrowed down to one point where there
would not be- much difference of opinion the
defence would not make an argument 10 the
jury.
Mr.. Darlington said that the defence had
shown some tact, but he felt that his duty WIS
10 argue the case. The defence could not chi
the prosecution out OF second argument unless
by due notice.
Mr.. Davidge said that this notice had been
given by informing Mr.. Wilson that the de-
fence might, after hearing the opening argu-
ment submit the case.
After some argument as to the right of the
District Attorney 10 argue the case the Gardner
case was referred TO and when il was prod u ced.
Mr.. Fendail read that Judge Crawford ruled
that the closing argument OF the prosecution
should be in reply only, and the defence decln.
ing 10 argue the case there was nothing 10 re-
ply TO.
in his view IL did not rest with the judge to say
how far the case may be argued, but in a trial
like this he thought the court had the discretion
10 say whether or not the argument on one side
should go on. He thought that Mr.. Wilson had
we'll argued il TO the jury.
The defence declining TO argue the case the
Court proceeded 10 instruct the Jury, saving
that after they had retired yesterday he had in
formed the counsel that he would say to the
jury that the facts and the cause did not pre-
sent case where he would allow a verdict of
murder TO stand, for the evidences would not
warrant IL, The question of murder had been
eliminated from the case, and after reading the
instruction granted. said the question was, did
\ the prisoner kill the deceased in a sudden
transport Of passion or in self-defence They
| should inquire whether the prisoner killed the
| deceased on the proyocation Of finding him in
| aduitsrous intercourse with his wife, when In
sudden passion by sach discovery, or whether
there was superadded an attempt on the part OF
the deceased to destroy the life Of the prisoner
| or do him bodily harm. II the prisoner wen,
TO the house 10 see his wife and the deceased for
the purpose of inquiring il she preferred Smoo,
| to him, and the killing was done because Of the
provocafion Of seeing them, then they should
ind him not guilty Of murder, but guilty OF
manslaughter. Ifthey we're satisfied that there
was superadded an attempt by the deceased 10
| do him bodily harm, then there should be 8
| verdict Of not guilty. In deciding whether IL
wss one or the other of these acts they
| should resort 70 all the lights before
them: reeoliecf the conversations with
the keeper Of the house; the testimony
| Of the witnesses who Travelled with tn deceased
| 70 Alexandria, and heard threats made by
/ Smoot, re. As general rule, the evidence OF
/ threats was not admitted, bat this u not case
| which comes under that rule. They should
,top, and ase consiaey vhethsS 1t wae pBeeAhSe