The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1868-02-17

the defence asked that they might call witness
rs to the relative size Of the accused and the de-
ceased, and the prosecution making no objcc.
Justice NJ. V. Buckley was recalled, and tcsti-
fed that Smoot was much the largest man, and
window. lie was little taller than the prisoner
and weighed probably $50 pounds.
Mr.. Eendall, for the defence, read the instruc.
the case without argument, but the prosecution
declined to accept the offer
M M %sO the e, the
Of the parties, he said that the question for the
Jury to decide is, whether the prisoner was right
They did not ask that he be found guilty Of muir:
der, but of manslaughter; that he was guilty OF
violating the law. The knowledge Of adultery
may constitute malice. The responsibility rests
such offences whether iawicss violence is to 20
unpublished. There are but two questions to de-
eide; lst. Il he took thciifc Of deceased In self
loss Of life or great bodily harm. The jury was
lie referred to Archibald ist, sections ,oio and
LOO. Did he fire the fatal shot because he be-
lieved that he was In bodily harmt What evil
dence had they that he thought there WIS danger
Of bodily harmi Officer Sneed testifes that
johnson said he was apprchensive that Smoot
was going to hurt him. Had they any reason to
believe that such was the easel And If they did
believe 1t, was his apprehension that he would
be hurt sufficient cause for the prisoner to take
lifci He referred to the diagram, and said that
the wound showed that the deceased could not
He argued from DR.. Bowers testimony "thst
the deceased must have been either sitting or
kneeling," the deceased was In a position In
bodily harm. The deceased was not off the bed,
when the fatal shot was Aired.
had made threats towards the prisoner, but they
had not proved that the prisoner had been In
smoo Mss an n and , %n. 'hs
possession OF the prisoners wife, that therefore
they had reason to suppose that he was armed;
he commended that this was disproved. What
were the motives of the prisoncrT Years ago
Smoot was in his employ, and an intimacy
sprung w between the prisoners wife and
more to do with each other, and he and his vile
separated. lie saw the wife the day before put
something In the bureau drawerj he went home,
slept with her that night, and attended to his
business the next morning. The case was not
ike the Sicklcs case. There was no passion or
frenzy in the case. The prisoner showed no
emotion, and there was no other motive with
this man than hatred to the man who had robbed
him OF his wife and was robbing him OF his
Mr.. W. read from oTicer sneed's testimony
that the prisoner was afraid his wife would get
some OF his property, and that she was squander-
cool as to tell OF bottle OF milk after having
committed such an actl man who at such q
time talks Of money is not entitled to the same
respect which should be shown to the honest
husband, who, in a transport OF frenzy, shoots
the seducer Of his wife. There was a kind Of
custom to aequit the husband who slays the
adultcrer, but this case Is not one which Is OF
this kind. The law nowhere says that you can
find man guiltless when he shoots man after
that man has been paid money to cease the init
macy. He would now leave the case with the
Mr.. Wilson, in conclusion, referred to the In
Mr.. Dayidre aid that in view Of Tho fsct 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
he
jury.
shown some tact, but he felt that his duty was
to argue the case. The defence could not cut the
prosecution out OF second argument unless by
due notice.
Mr. Davidgc said that this notice had been
given by informing Mr.. Wilson that the defence
might, after hearing the opening argument, sub
After some argument as to the right of the
District Attorney to argue the case, the Gard
ner case was referred to, and when 1t was pro-
ruled that the closing argument OF the prosecu.
ton should be In reply only, and the defence de-
clining to argue the case, there was nothing 10
After some discussion, Judge Fisher said that
In his view 1t did not rest with the judge to say
how far the case may be argued, but in a trial
should go on. He thought that Mr., Wilson had
well argued 1t to the jury
The defence declining to argue the case, the
Court proceeded to instruct the jury, saying
that after they had retired yesterday he had In
jury that the facts and the cause did not present
case where he would allow verde Of murder
10 stand for the evidence would not warrant 1t.
from thc case, and after reading the instruction
granted, said the question was, did the prisoner
kill the deceased In sudden transport Of passion
or In self-defencc. They should inquire whether
the prisoner killed the deceased on the provoca-
tion OF finding him in adultcrous intercourse
with his wife, when in sudden passion by such
IInb
attempt on tho part Of the deceased to destroy
Tie y lie Of the prisoner or do him bodily harm.
II she preferred Smoot TO him, and the killing
was done because Of the provoestion of seeing
them, then they should find him not guilty OF
murder, but guilty of IN ,hslaughter. II they
were satisfied that there was superadded an at
tempt by the deceased to do him bodily harm,
then there should be verdict OF not guilty. In
dcGillg whether II was one or the other OF
these acts they should rcgort to all the lights
before them reSollsct the ,SSoayersatians with
" witnesses who Travelled with the deceased to
and heard threats made by Smoot,
&c. As a general rule the evidence OF threats
was not admitted, but this is not case which
comes under that rule. They should take the
habits Of the deceased into consideration, and
attack was made before the shooting, and give
n The Jury retired at 1885. In charge of balliGs
The jury remained in their room until 2:lO
o'clock, having been out nearly two hours, and
meanwhile the crowd loitered about the court In
breathlcss anxiety, but few, II any, expecting q
verdict OF guilty Various conjectures were
made as to which Of the Jury were holding Out, 1t
having been rumored that there were two doubt.
full ones. At the hour mentioned the jury en-
tered the court room, when the crowd, which had
been considerably Increased In numbers, passed
into the court room and kept the greatest silence
as the clerk mir. Middletonl called the names.
Mr.. Middleton asked If they had agreed on q |
verdict, when Mr.. John Little advanced to the |
la haak nd ut In thn
giving in the verdict of "Noi Guilty."
This announcement was received with ap- |
plause, (clapping of hands and cheers,) which |
manifestation was almost Immediately checked |
by the officers OF the court.
Mr. Davidgc moved the discharge of the pris- |
oneF and the court ordered 1t, when the accused |
bowed his IL Eafnd was immedi ately beset by |
With difficulty he made his way to tho Jury, |
whom he thanked, and then to tho Witness |
room, where, for time, he was kept quite busy |
In receiving the congratulations OF tie specta-
tors, after which he, with a few friends left the
court house by the east door.
No LICENsE.-Ohlcers Sicily and Acton of the |
Sixth precinct, arrested John Pearson, Charles |
+. Perry, and Christopher Hollohan, merchants |
on Friday last Justice CLARK tined Hollohan |
k2l 10, aud dismissed the other two
Green n Williams, w. L. Wall n Co., auction |
GERS, were arrested on Friday last by Officer |
McDermott, OF the Second precinct, on complaint |
Of I. Boudinot, They were required by Justice |
Thompson to pay IS cents cost.
Martha Snipc, Mary Mack, and Mary Hill |
bush were arrested By Officers Fowler and Ed. |
nonston, Of the Fourth precinct, for keeping |
logs unlicensed. Mary Hilbush was reauired To |
nav Al cost and the nj hers m Ia, Tnati,a