The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1869-05-14

Tire infant was brought into Court, and, in
charge of a nurse, WAS placed beside its
mother.
P. II. Rutledge EST, States Attorney, In
the opening argument for the State, spoke
of the duty Which they had ehdeavored to
perform iii presenting the facts of the case
fairly 10 the jury that the same duty would
devolve on the jury in deciding the case;
that the jury were we'll known citizens and
that the State would suffer no injustice at
their hands; that he would in the opening
argument merely present the case ofthc State
against the prisoner, as made out by the evil
dence, with the law applicable thereto, with
out endeavofing to anticipate what line of
argument The defence would assume; that
he would show from the manner and acts of
the prisoner at the time.of the killing, that
ujwas wilfully deliberate and prcmeditated,
therefore murder; that it would rest on the
defence to show that the killing was of less
grade than murder, either from circumstan-
ces of provocation, arising out of the ey-
idence offered by the State, or from evidence
offered by the prisoner which would re-
cucc it to manslaughter. or from cir
cumstances justifying the killing, as self
defence, which would excuse the killing I'd.
That he would endeavor to show that the
killing was done in pursuance of previous
plan, which would also be murder. 3D.
That he would comment on the evidence
OF insanity offered by the prisoner. But be-
lore entering on the argument: of the case, he
would clear away few matters which were
foreign to this case; and ut the outset he
wished to say that this case was not prose-
cuted to avenge the death of Nicholas Nc
Comas, nor in the defence of the wrongs
committed by him had the counsel for the
State one word to say in pallia.on or excuse
Thnxtf nl,,x,t - l.
great wrong to the poor prisoner ut the
bar, but this did not justify the prisoner in
becoming her own judge and avenger of her
wrongs; but 1t was to prevent crime and
thereby protect society from anarchy and
confusion that this case, and all cases. were
prosecuted by the State; to punish the vic.
lators of the broken law. A human life had
been taken, in defiance of the law, and the
State asks that punishment may be inflic-
ted upon the violation of the law. In regard
to Nicholas McComas, therefore, as far rs
the prosecution of this case is concerned
he had not word 70 say but he would be
pardoned for saying thai from the evidence
in this cause, in all his RELATIONSHIPS a son
and brother; the only support of an aged
mother and three delicate sisters, there could
be no word but in praise of him that there
was no evidence, and he believed that none
could be produced, that he had ever spoken
harmful word of the prisoner, but on the
contrary, from his declarations, as proved by
the defence, he always spoke in the highest
terms of her, and said both to Mr. Smithson
and Mrs. Cairnes herself, that it was all his
fault.
Mr. Rutledgc then said that with this
matter set clear he would now come to the
matters more properly before the Jury, and
showed first from the evidence in the case
the prisoner enquiring for McComas when
she came to Jarrrettsville on that evening,
and from her cool manner while committing
the act and her declaration made at the time
shows that the killing was done with pre-
meditation, and therefore murder.
3D. That the jury could infer from the
facts proved before them, whether the pris
oner did not receive information, before She
left home on that evening" that Nicholas Nc
Comas was at Jarr9ttsville, and whether from
all the facts proved in the case, that she did
not come to Jarrettsyille with the previous
formed plan to kill Nicholas McComas and
if they shall so believe, then the killing In
the manner testified to, was murder in the
first degree.
I'D. In regard to the evidence of insanity
offered by the dcfence-if the Jury believed
that there was previous plan, and it was
in pursuance of previous plan that the
killing was done, then that rebuts and dis
provesany de;. olinsanity, and it would not be
necessary to take the evidence into consider.
alton; but if the jury should not think there
was sufficient proof of the previous plan in
that view OF it, has there been any sufficient
evidence of insanity? We must start out
with the general doctrine of law, that eyery
man is to be presumed sane until the con-
trary is proved. Then is there any such
sufficient evidence here that the prisoner was
insane, to overbalance the proof and pre-
sumption that she was sane. That the only
evidence offered of insanity, was of those
persons Tho were present at the shooting,
some of whom thought her manner was wild
and excited, and that she might be out of her
mind, but others proved that she was singu-
larry calm, and declaring to the bystanders,
at the very moment the shooting was over,
that you all know what this was done for"
showing that her mind was clear, and that
the act was done for the previous injury
which she had received from McComas and
If SO murder. Besides, of all the friends who
knew her previously, and down to the very
time of the act, no one has been called TO tes-
tify in regard to her insanity; not even DR..
Jarrett, who was on the stand and who was
her physician; no question was put to him
in regard to her insanity, and even Mrs.
Cairnes was asked no question by the coun.
sci for the defence as to her insanity. There
were many questions put TO him as to her
distress ofmind, on account of the marriage
not taking place, but not one whether that
distress had upset the balance of her mind,
and therefore that the conclusion follows
that there was no proof that could be pro.
duced that she was insane; and that the mere
declarations of the bystanders, who merely
Judged of her insanity from the desperate act
that she was committing, would make every
one insane who commits a desperate deed.
That from the whole evidence that there is
no sufficient proof that she was insane, that
should weigh down the legal presumption
of her sanity, and if not, then she is guilty of
murder. gst .rI .sI - r.
Herman Stump, Jr., Esq, on the part of
the defence, then arose, and spoke of the
pride which he felt in having been chosen as
one of the defenders of innocence; that there
was written law, but there was also law
in the human breast which had been affirmed
and re-affirmed by the vcrdicts of juries in
many similar cases; that the jury could tenn
per the written law and so alleviate it. He
then detailed the wrongs suffered by the
accused, and added to the jury that not only
the eyes of the assembled concQurse, but also
the eyes ofthe whole community were upon
them. He next spoke feelingly of the mod
esty, kindness, amiability and excellence of
character Of the unfortunate young lady, as
clearly Shown by the evidence of many wit
nesses. tf 81"