Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-02-15
The JOHNs9N-SMoorH HOMICIDE.
Trial for Murder.

Trial for Murder.
FOURTH DAY.
After our report Of the trial of Henry John
son, indicted for The murder Of Thomas Smoos
on the 2Vth Of June last in the Criminal court
Judge Fisher, closed, yesterday, the prayers for
instructions offered by the prosec uclon and de-
fence were argued at length by the counsel.
The following were presented for the prose-
cutiou:
l. IL the Jury find from the evidence That the
deceased came TO his death from wounds in
niet. by q pistoi ball, fred by the prisoner
while the dec ased was in Tie act of adulterou.
intsr course with his wife, he is guilty Of felo
Nous homicide; and il the Jury further find
from said evidence that the prisoner had reason
70 suspect adpifro1s intercourse between the
deceased and his wife, and under the influence
of that suspicion armed himself with said pu-
tol and went TO the house where he WAS IN
forms the deceased could be found liz oompa-
ny with bis wife, determined to take the life of
the deceased, IL he surprised him in the act of
adultery with his wife, and did take his life as
aforesa ne Is guilty of murder.
2 And II the jury believe the facts stated in
the foregoing prayer. the prisoner cannot plead
seI-oeIehce as an excuse for said homi eide; but
TO excuse said homicide on the ground Of self
at hn1e the Jury must be satisfied from the
whole evidence that the prisoner was in immi-
nent danger OF death, serious bodily harm, from
which he could not safely escape.
D. III Johnson came upon Smoot and his wife
Witnout previous expectation of meeting them
togener In that room, and WAS suddenly so in-
censed that be shot Smoot, il was manslaughter
=. Johnson must have been in imminent dan
ger OF his life, not the result of hls own fault 10
be justified in shooting the deceased.
by the defence:
II the jury find that under suspicion of his
wifes fidelity the prisoner visited the house of
sawyer, and, on entering the room, had ocular
demonstration of adulterous intercourse be.
tween Smoot and his wife, that Smoot leaped
from the bed towards johnson, and, under
circumstances, that gave him reasonable
ground for fearing bodily harm from Smoot
the prisoner is not guilty as indicted, nor is he
guilty OF manslaughter.
In the course of the argument on the instruc.
tons, the Court said to Mr.. Darlington: You
mad better leave out this matter Of murder, for
am determined to take the sting of death out
OF the case when the jury comes in. Any man
would 60 down after his wife to the place where
Orpheus went after his, and he had a right
70 go after her armed if he thought it necessary.
he mad sworn to do SO at the marriage altar.
ana ne would be less than a man if he did not
do so. 1t would be better to eonfine the case to
manslaughter.
The judge said he would give but the follow.
ing instruction to the Jury:
IL the jury shall find that the prisoner fired
the pistol shot under the provecation of finding
the deceased In adulterOus intercourse with his
wife, he Is guilty of manslaughter unless the
jury shall find that when the shot was fired the
prisoner entertained reasonable apprehension
OF loss Of life or great bodily harm, from which
IL would be more dangerous to attempt to re-
treat than TO stand his ground. Ii the Jury
shall find the prisoner sustained such appre-
hension, and that from all the circumstances
the same was reasonable, then the prisoner is
not guilty either of murder or mansiaughter
The Court then adjourned until this morning
FIFTH DAY.
Acquittal Of the Prisoner,
The Court resumed its session at 10 o'clock
might call witness as to the relative size of
the accused and the deceased, and the prosecu
ton making no Objection
Justice N. v. Buckley was recalled, and testi.
wa m Of fha Lave
could easily have thrown the prisoner from a
window. He was a little taller than the pris.
onsr. and weighed probably $50 pounds.
MIR. Fendall for the defence, read the instruc.
tons OF the Court, and again offered TO submit
the case without argument, but the prosecution
declined 70 accept the offer
MIR. N. Wilson opened the argument for the
prosecution, and after referring TO the relations
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 murder, but of manslaughter; that he was
guilty Of violating the law. The knowledge of
adultery may constitute malice. The response
bility rests on them to say whether there is a
law 10 punish such offences; whether lawless
violence is TO go unpublished There are but
two questions to decide: LIST. II he took the life
decreased in self-defence: if he had reasonable
apprehension OF loss Of life or great bodily
harm. The jury was to decide this ques-
ton, and not the prisoner. He referred
to Archibald LIST, sections ,OlO and 1Ol6
Did he fire the fatal shot because he believed
mad they that he thought there was danger of
bodily harml Officer Sneed testifes that John
son said he Was apprehensive that Smoot was
gong TO hurt him. Had they any reason 10 be-
heve that such was the easel And If they did
believe II, was his apprehension that he would
b- hurt. sufhcient cause for the prisoner TO take
iIfel De referred to the diagram, and said that
the wound showed that the deceased couId NOT
nave been approaching the person al the time
lie argued from DR. Bowen's testimony ..that
the deceased must have been either sitting OF
- U-as in
which he did not expect TO receive Iniury
or bodily harm. The deceased was not of the
bed, and he was either lying down or just rising
up " hen the fatal shot was fired. The defence
had put IN evidence that Smoot had made
threats towards the prisoner, but they had not
proved that the prisoner had oeen informed of
Smoot was an adulterer, and was in POSSESSION
Of the prisoners wife, that therefore thew had
reason TO suppose that he was armed; he con.
, ,eIGs en-, thaa o,,t TINS was disProyed What
ago Smoot was in his employ,
and an intimacy sprung up between the prison,
er,s wife and Smoot. The prisoner paid them
to have nothing more to do with each other, and
he and his wife separated. He saw the wife
the day before put something in the bureau
drawer; he went home, slept with her that
night, and attended TO his business the next
morning. This case was not like the Sickles
case. There was nc passion or frenzy in this
case. The prisoner showed no emotion and
there was no other motive with this man than
wife and was robbing him Of his money
Mr.. w. read from officer Sneed's testimony
that the prisoner was afraid his wife would
get some OF hs property, and that she was
squandering his means on Smoot. How could
man be so cool a to tell Of a bottle of milk
after having committed such an acti A man
who al such q time talks Of money Is not emit.
tied 10 the same respect which should be shown
10 the honest husband, who, in q TRANSPORT of
frenzy shoots the seducer of his wife There
was Kind OF custom to acQuit the husoaud
who Stays the adulterer. but this case j. nor one
which Is Of this kind The law nowhere saws
that you can lind n man guiltless when he
shoots man after that man has been paid mon
ey TO cease the intimacy. He would now leave
the cyse with The jury.
Mr.. Wilson, in conclusion, referred TO the i'm.
suuctions of the court in the case of Zimmer
Mr.. Dayidge said that in view of the fact that
the law had been settled, and the matter had
oten 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 WAS
10 argue the case. The defence could not cut
the prosecution out OF q 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 to the right of the
District Attorney N arpua the th.. q 49,