The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1868-03-11
LOCAL DEPARTMENT.

CHARaE on WIyR Acknowledgement Court,
sS. IN The trs q uhsss:
O'Rourke, charged with the murder Of his wife.
The case was opened by Mr.. Darlington, who
Mrs.. orr death, and eontended that they made
plain case OF murder against the prisoner;
Mr.: Thos; Wilson, for the defence, urged the
and oontended that there would be no ease made
out against the prisoner.
the time Of Mrs. O'Rourke's death IN a room ad.
Joining the chamber which Mrs. OR. occupied:
Shortly before her death she came into room of
,o'RoaTie came IN. lie said, ssSfs6, stand up
your own way, will not; for you've murdered
me-" He then ran toward her, put bis hand IN
her And seized ner ~ .he tsss
aeSer spoke afterwards. After she fell he kicked
veated him; he then ran to her head and lifted
his foot, saying he would stamp her brains out,
istsr 1ere oRSarRe them andins his VIE laid
motionless, seat for some wine and poured sohe
info her mouth; sba swallowed itwith gasps;
examined Mrs. D Rourks's condition. ,,,.,
The cross examination gave no additional
Dr.. Philips, surgeoni Witness made a post
morten exsmin alton Of Mrs. o'Roprke's body
three days alter hurisl, and found bruises and
maxi, R q soes asSut sSs
chofinr. di,t not Indicate a choking 50 severe
q. % produce tcsth He found re lSSE tpses,
ounces Of blood. COR .ed the brain. This last was
the cause Of hef dea N. y might have been
caused BY violence or SUI srinhused by high ex'
Ely Bonner, eolored wltnes 'y.s L. the &C.. room on
~ Mrs. MeMahon when Mr.. oh "etE fna came - y
ne stated the same facts as det.. ~" ~ NATE
Upon eros. examination she stated tn " Aftss
r mfs: IN, Ieli her husband tried his utm. w
as sisS as an ordins9y K ,s, irSn bench aS.
,u lanes MoMshon. Witness is husband of arst
0'Rourke upon his wife, and detailed The same |
facts stated In the testimony of the frst witness
minutes after O'Rourke struck his wife before |
me ieii from the bed to the floor. O'Rourke was |
not touching her At The time she fell.
peaceable, inofensiyc man, and his wife, when |
intoxicated, a violent and hrawling woman.
N, she was drunk, her husband would often |
heard her abuse him, but never knew him to re- |
John Cicle is sergeant In o'Rourke,s company.
ORourke is good, quiet, sober, steady man;
never getting into rows,
Jas; bSrnsis c0mrsds Of o'Rourkc, and testl-
Daniel Whalan bore similar testimony.
=, MT Wilson introduced the descriptive list OF 7
IN Ss At Malvern sEw hn h
He then directed O'Rourke to exhibit his hand
e s' sns % sn much y N
seized his wife In the manner described by the
WIN. Myers testified to o,Rourke,s pescesble
character, and to his wife's drunkenness.
Mrs. Collins testified that on the day
o'Rourke's wife died the prosecuting witness
Mrs. McMahon) was intoxicated.
Corporal James Wallace and Mrs. whitimore
testified to the good character OF the accused.
8nss ppSNe tho
morning OF Mrs. ORourkes death she fell down
IN front Of her door and struck her head VIC.
!ently, They hoped the prosecution would
Mr.. Darlington declined.
The defence then offered to submit the case to
The jury without argument.
, M tGsr AZ duty would not permit hmto
Nj. Darlington argued to the jury that II they
believe the woman was In feeble state Of health
and would probably have lived for a shoSt time,
ieath the prisoner was guilty.
..hsd ne oeaiito Instruct ths Jury that iftSsy
fused came to his neighbours house and request
u his wife to home, but that she refused to do
70, and that thereupon he took hold OF her throat
md took the money from her person, and that
hereupon she fell to the ground, and that he
hen kicked her twice, from the effects of which
rs sSnent she died, the prisoner Is guilty OF
The court refused to instruct that In such case
hat the matter opsa for discassoa s' Was Wssther
he act OF prisoner made a case of manslaughter.
rhis was the only open question,
on,
The Court charged the jury that before they
'ould Ind the prisoner guilty Of murder they
must find that he took his wife's life Intention
lily and with malice aforethought. There Is evi-
lence In this case OF neither implied or express
malice, and the defendant could not be convicted
hat the prisoner did take the life OF Sarah ,
)iRourke, and that not In selfdefence, he was
rullty Of granddaughter. Now, did he take her
ifef This question was exelusiyely within the
province OF the Jury, and II jury were salts
led that he did they were obliged return YER
vas the direct proximate cause Of her death, the
sw holds him responsible for the consequences,
inder the form OF granddaughter. Unfortunately, 1
No atmosphere Of this evidence 10 clouded by /