The Portland daily press., 1869-10-02

I a,.. an. rnaartake TO say hat Mrs Baker 10 re-
snons,b,e for his msdeeds? Is he that fascinating
mon bowiug all heads before him he walks in the
community? You would judge so from the manner
ia which Mrs. Parker clings to him. And Mrs. Ba-
ker cannot have felt at all this fascination! she can
not be the victim Of his acts! Who is to be the
Judge? The other ground taken in defence and the
main question for you to decide is was she insane?
II that be 3d. under those regulations which the law
says are sufficient to excuse person from the re.
sponsioty OF their acts, then your verdict should
De not guilty. 1t upon this point particularly that
the defence mainly rests. The County Attorney
mere made very clear and torcible argument to
show that the prisoner was not insane which we
nave not the time nor space to give and mere alb
stract would not do it justice. -.
The presiding Judge instructed the jury that there
we're two grounds set up in defence; the first, that
even II Mrs. Parkar was OF sane mind she was In
the eye of the law justified in taking tn life OF Mrs.
Baker; second, whether she SO justified or net
she not of sound mind. As to the first ground,
he instructed them that the law Of self defence, that
is ofthe right to defend ones life and person against
the atrocious crimes then in the act Of being COM
mitted upon ones life, person or property, or to
persen under protection, there can be no ques
ton; that il to say, for woman to take the life of
man attempting to ravsh her, provided it could be
prevented in no other way 1t is allowable for a
man to kill another who is attempting to rayish his
wife, provided he cannot prevent it by any other
means. While these principles are a part of the
law, he deemed it his duty to instruct them that
party whether man or woman, has no right what
in tho eye of the law to seek to take the life or
attempt to take the life of another who is at the time
In no way endangering their liie property or per-
son, or of any person under their protecton that it
flr The iurv N ind vhoiI
ow of evidence in this case to indicate that Mrs. Ba-
ker, tie party assaulted In the act of taking or
attempting to take, or attempting to endanger, or
doing anything whatev to the nfe person or
property Of Mrs. Parker her husband at the time
the assault was committed, and unless they so
proved, they had no right to justify the assault on
any such ground
As to the second ground, tho Judge instructed
them that 1t was question which required their
most careful consideration; that man or woman is
presumed to be until their insanity is proved
1t is not for the Government to prove her sanity in
the first instance any than is her duty in the
first instance to prove her innocence. 1t is for the
Government to prove beyond reasonable doubt
the acts which relate to the crime, and then if the
prisoner would set up insanity here must be some
evidence tending to show it, and on this point he
would instruct them that 1t was not necessary for
uCicuSc ~ pEONC uer
ofevidence, but it sufficient they succeeded in
raising reasonable doubt in the minds OF the jury
as to whether she sane not. If they did, it
was their duty to acquit.
After commenting at length the law OF insanity
the Judge closed and the jury retired.
At the opening Of the Court in the afternoon the
jury came in with verdict OF "Not Guilty, by reason
Of insanity"
motion was made that warrant be issued for |
her commitment to the Insane Asylum for treat |
meht, according to the provisions of the Statute.
This motion was resisted, on the ground that the
Statute was not imperative but left it discretionary
with the Court and that there no pretence that
Mrs. Parker is insane now; the jury had simply |
found that she insane at the time the act was
committed. |
The presiding Judge remarked that he should |
treat the matter as leaving it discretionary with the
Court but that in deciding the motion he felt called
upon to express his opinion as to the DEFENDANTS |
sanity, which otherwise he should not have done;
which opinion that the defendant was not now |
insane, nor was there any testimony In the case |
which led his mind to the belief that she had ever
been insane. He remarked that he did not wish to |
Intimate or reflect anything against the integrity of
the jury for he believed they had performed their
duty faithfully and conscientiously; it was simply
difference in opinion.
The motion was therefore overruled and the de- |
fendant discharged.
State vs.. John Bradley. indicted for the illegal |
manufacture of ale for sale within this State This
case has been tried twice previous, and twice the |
jury disagreed. The defendant admitted he manu-
featured the ale but claimed that it did not come
within the Statute, and introduced testimony tend
ing to establish the fact that the article manuac
tured though called ale not intoxicating. Most
of workmon from the brewery testified that they |
were in the habit OF drinking all the way from one
to two gallons day without its producing any de-
gree of jntoxicaton; the counsel argued therefore
that as this not intoxicating it could not be pro-
hibited by the legislature; that merely calling 1t
ale did not bring it within the Statute. The jury
after being out two hours in and reported that
1t was impossible for them to agree. They dis
charged and the County Attorney entered mol.
pros.
State VS.. Intoxicating Liquors, Joseph Ryder and
Samuel Rowell, claimants. On trial.