The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1869-01-22

soreness about the neck aud throat so much SO that
it was difficult for her to talk almost impossible to
swallow; bruises generally and soreness Of body;
soreness of bowels could not bear the weight OF the
bed clothes; was in family way, early stages mis-
carriage took place; such violence would be likely to
produce miscarriage
Defendant took the stand. / was born in Perry
Me- of an American mother and Scotch Irish faith
er; married 21st OF December, 1867 in Portland up-
beknown my wifes folks and in spite of their great
opposition; always lived happy and contented with
my wife so far she was concerned; ALWAYS treated
her kindly; never could treat her otherwise; 1 not
only loved her but almost worshipped her; always
Gid just as she required me; never went out even
ings without her; always staid at home with her
when was not at work: had not drank ANYTHING
for four months; promised her would never drink
again; the day of the assault started after din
ner 10 look for employment on Commercial street;
saw there an acquaintance from Augusta, where we
lived soon after marriage, and took him home to din
and to tea with me; after tea was persuaded to
go with him to the Albany House, my wife objected:
while was gone met my wife looking tor me on
Congress street; went home with her; she wanted
me to go to bed; told her if she would let me 90
and get some more whskey would go; went out
and met Festus Roach and Others and drank with
them; Roach came home with me; he was a puglist
and talked to me about fighting; met my wife and
this gentleman from Augusta; was very nervous:
remember striking the fellow that was with me; that
is the last remember before was arrested; would
have parted with my right sooner than have
raised it against my wife; had no occasion against
her; she has always been true and faithful wife to
me.
Mr.. Carleton, in defer ce, admitted that his client
had done wrong for which he ought to be punished
but commended that he had not commit the offence
charged.
The Statute provides that if person with mali
cous intent to MAIN or disfgure, cuts or mains the
tongue. puts out destroys eye cuts or tears off
an car, cuts. Sits mutates the nose or lp cuts
off or disables limb, or other member of another
person, he shall be punished by Imprisonment not
less than one nor mare than twenty years.
Under this section the counsel contended that
front tooth was not included; that the tooth was
not knocked out but broken off, and that though in
toxication was defence for an unlawful act com.
mitted. yet, Il person intoxicated as not to
be capable OF forming an intention, it was a COM
plete defence to an abortive crime; that he could
not be punished for intent to main unless he act
ualy intende. it, and that breaking the tooth was
not manning. He commended that the marginal
words manning defned' was part of the Statute
Mr.. Webb, for the government, read from the
Statute that marginal and other notes are not to be
be considered as legal provisions which Mr.. Garlic
ton said he understood before Mr.. Webb then re-
ferred to East's Pleas of the Crown, Hawkins and
other authorities to define the term mayhem, and
show that it included front tooth, and continued
that mayhem was originally applied by the common
law to the depriving OF person, or disabling of
those members which were useful to him in defend
inc hn1ceIf oro an odv
times tooth was conedered such member; that
the person. He said that the knocking out Of front
TOOTH especially of young female, was one of the
most efectual means OF permanent disfguring
that the ingenuity of iendish nature could con-
ceive or devise; that having committed the act he
is presumed by law to have intended that act there
is no denial that this woman was manned; YOU have
the evidence of witnesses and the evidence of her
personal presence before yon, and every step in his
defence has shown more clearly the enormity of his
crime. Upon whom has this outrage been commit
ted? To whom has this violence been done? To his
wife, who abandoned her father and mother, her own
natural friends and protectors to rely upon hiskind
ness to his wife who has sundered all the ties of her
infancy and childhood and all her blood connections
70 seek shelter in his arms and under his roof; to
MS wife, who bore within her bosom his unborn off
spring. Where? Under her own root tree II any
where she should have been safe. When? In the
middle hours of night when everywhere but in the
haunts of infamy and vice or in the presence of
fends like that man all nature seeks repose 1t has
been said that man who raises his hand against
woman save in the way OF kindness is wretch
whom it were base fattery to name a coward. The
crime was committed against a young, feeble, sick,
trusting, devoted wife, who only the day before in
letter to her brother introduced by the defence had
declared her readiness to endure starvation and pr
Walton and suffering so long she could enjoy the
affection and OF her husband and this is the re-
turn she receives His drunkenness is made his de-
fence. He knew well enough whom to beat. 1t was
his wife and nobody else; he offered violence to no
one else; he ran from the officers who arrested him.
If you have doubt OF his guilt aoquit him: if not,
show by your verdict what protection you will give
from evidence to the feeble the helpless and the de-
fenceless. -~.4t"
AAss y s-s.s~ 1890 1880
person of front tooth was manning under the Stat
ute and that disabling of the tooth was manning,
aud that voluntary drunkenness was no defence for
acrime committed in state of intoxcation.
The verdict was guilty. Sentence, ten years in
the State Prison. l. -s. e.-.sa-.
Alter sentence his wife, who has already filed
libel against him for divorce, went to him in the
dock and gave to him kindly words OF advice. G.
Webb. Carleton.
State v. Samuel Hill. For arson, January term,
1868. Verdict guilty. Motion in arrest overruled.
Exceptions filed. Argued at the July Law term.
Exceptions overruled Will be sentenced Saturday
morning '-'
The County Attorney gave notice that cases of
felony were about concluded, that cases of various
kinds would be taken up, and gave special notice to
parties under recognizance from day to day, that
they must be in attendance.
The Judge gave notice to all parties to be ready
tomorrow morning without further notice. and also
stated that in all cases where the law allows it.
that where the bail is forfeited the whole amount of
bail will be required even it the party is brought in
on capias. His Honor looked upon the bail system
as the weakest part OF the criminal law; that too
much distinction was made between those who give
bail and those who have not money enough to give
security.