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

that In all criminal cases the jury shall be
the judges of the law and the facts How
are they to judge2 They can do no more
than judge Of what the law is. If you have
no law. then Won can Judge Inv no law and
your oaths should have been that YOU
would try the case according to the facts
and to any law which you might make.
Juries were instructed that they might
administer justice without being subject
to the tyranny and injustice which might
in high party times aotuate judges. If the
| definition OF murder in the common law is
mistake, how is man charged with it,
| to defend himselfs The gentleman who
spoke this morning said that if you
brought in verdict of guilty, it could be
set aside by the Court on techncality.
That is so. Where do they find that, ex.
cept in this same derided common law
My learned friends say, if you bring in a
verdict OF acquittal, no power on earth
can change this. And where do they find
this, except in this same derided common
law. Turn where they will, they must re-
turn to this common law, without which
darkness and chaos would soon settle
down upon us. You were told that YOU
| may disregard the written law and make a
law for yourselves to suit the case If
juries are allowed to do this, raise my
hand in protest against tit is the higher
law doctrine which few years ago drench-
ed our country with blood.
| Mr.. Archer here arose and stated that the
I defence had been misunderstood, that they
only said that the common law was made
up of decisions in preceding cases.
Attorney General understood you. 1t
was an ingenious attempt to give law
which was as much like the true law as
pinchbeck is to gold. l object to any
such definition of the common law. The
case of MARI Harris, mentioned 10y the de-
fence, was not II case Of seduction, it was
case of breach of promise and a clear case
of insanity, as shown by the oath OF her
coure3l and medical meh. She was acqlit-
! ted.
He next spoke of the offence, as charged
In the indictment, and said that though
murder in the first degree was there charg-
ed, the jury could bring in either Il verdict
OF murder in the second degree or man
! slaughter. The prisoner at the bar is en-
titled to the full benefit of the provisions
of the common law, which are intended to
secure q fair trial, and every excuse for
the commission of the deed.
If the jury should not think the period
between the provocation and the act SUI.
ticient one for cooling time, they can bring
| in verdict OF not guilty. If they deem
the time sufficient for cooling, they must
feel bound to bring in verdict of guilty.
He then referred to the fac IS in evidence,
and said that the operations of the human
heart and mind could only be arrived at
by the outward act, gestures and declara-
| hox
evidence to show the condition of the mind
and heart of a party while committing an
act of this kind
He then adverted to the cause of all this
trouble, the imprudence of both parties,
and the tragedy which was enacted at
Jarrettsville on the 10th of April. He had
not one word to say as to the criminality
OF Richard Cairnes; he is not charged be-
fore you with any offence; l would not say
harsh word to him; am sorry that his
name has been brought in this case at all.
| am sorry that such undue weight, also,
has been attached to the absence Of the lit
tie girl, Ella Hope. He then described the
connection ofRichard Cairnes with the act
OF his sister, as brought out by the evidence,
and argued that Miss Cairnes knew that
Nicholas McComas was at Jarrettsyille
when she reached there, and said that it
was for the jury to draw their inference
from this fact, as to whence she had got
b,r -inforn,atior,.- rho-Asse,.,r- G, ere =,
then related the circumstances of the kill.
ing, and said that the gestures and actions
OF McComas indicated his surprise at an
attack from such source; the jury were
to consider whether the remarks of Miss
Oairnes at and after the occurrence and her
actions, indicated insanity or not. When
was tho threat (she called it promise) that
she would take his life made2 Was there
sufficient cooling time between this prom
Use and the 10th of April2 That is foryou
to judge. | assume that she was in the full
possession other faculties-tor the law pre-
sumes that an act done in this way is done
by person of sound mind. There was no
evidence that she was deranged before the
1st of January. If the jury think that the
prisoner was insane at the time of the oc-
currencc, then it was their duty SO to find,
and acquittal would be relief to ALL He
said that the presumption of sanity is held
until the contrary is shown; that when a
crime is committed, it is presumed that it
was done by person Of sound mind, be-
cause the majority of men were of sound
mind.
Lunatics, idiots and infants are all the
objects of the tenderest care of the law
The jury must decide from the evidence
before them whether this lady was ofsound
mind and responsible for her actions. The
character of her mind at the time of action
is to be her defence, or ground for conyic.
ton. He next argued that the assertion
made by the defence that insanity could be
detected by looking into persons eyes
was not sustained by his experience nor
by the books; that instead Of being very
easy to discover insanity, it was very diff
cult; except in cases of monomania,
when you touch upon the subject about
which the mind is diseased. .'.
The jury must carefully weigh the evil
dence, and apply the rules of evidence to
the facts brought before them; they are to
find their verdict according to the evidence.
That if the jury came to the conclusion
that she was in her right mind, they should
bring in verdict of guilty. If they found
that she was not of sound mind, and not
responsible, they should bring in a verdict
of mot guilty by reason of insanity" He
closed by explaining the degrees of muir
der and the crime of manslaughter as set
! forth in the statute books
Thejury were then placed in charge of
a bailitf at 5 o'clock, and retired to jury
room. In about five minutts the jury sig