The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1869-09-24

man from any land where he has dwelt before.
no WIZ, no cnii9' no brother, no friend, has
ever yet appeared or now appears before ma 10
| give Us any intimation that this man was 9th
| er III life, in character, in disposition than he
| has exhibited himself to us in this testimony,
| from the first when he appeared upon the
| wharf to embark upon the Carlotta, as bloat-
| ed, drunken refugee from the Jail, with face
| bruised, with marks of violence, down to the
| violence with which he closed his life. You
| cannot find here from any testimony in this
| case, you have no right to infer from any word
that appears in the testimony, OF any thing that
has been said, or any fair inference that you
| cah draw from it, that this man was other than
ne thus appeared then, as the violent burglar,
nay, worse than that, as the infamous out
RACER of female innocence -
MY learned associate who opened this case
SAID 1t was common proverb that nothing
put good should be spoken of the dead |
Know 1t is common Droverb, but you and l,
Mr. aFJFen N, and Gen lame of the Jury,
have no right to ask the application of any
snch proverb to u.s. 1t is better for the coun-
try that over our graves there should be the
honesi record of our virtues and our falings
alike, and il is of no benefit to our fellow men
1t Is an injury to the cause of good NOR
als-lt Is an injury to the community it is an
injury to the cause Justice, that if our lite
mas been stained with crime and violence and
injury 10 cur fellow men, that with the earth
taat IS shovelled over our mortal remains, there
should be beaped upon our bosom an,ther
load Of this faIsehood and tat a criminal life
should be held up to the coMmunitv after we
are dead as an example of good to be followed.
1t is better for the Twin better for the world
better tor those who are to live after, that
truth and not f4lsehood should be spoken alike
OF the living and the dead. We have no right
here-l have no right under my oath as couu
seiior-you have no right under your oath as
Jurors-tor any mistaken sympathy Tor the de-
IN IL .,l,..x
ed in the testimony by which you are sworn TO
determine the character of the persons involv
ed in It,
Now, then, have as briefly as possible re-
capitulated the history of this TRANSACTION and
that portion of it which cannot be coutroyert-
ed. Upon such a state of facts as this what
are the principles by which you are TO try the
case at the bar? There was time in the ear
iler stages of the law, when there was pun
lShment OF some kind of slight degree for ev-
cry homicide, however justifisble or excusa-
Dle;-there was q time in the early period of
the common law, when, if a man killed an
other by misadventure or chance. or when if
he killed another in defence of his own life,
although he did not forfeit his life, his goods
and his property were at ths mercy Of the
King and he was relieved from the forfeiture
of his goods only by the interposition of the
royal clemency. Many of the cases referred
to by the counsel for the government, in speak
ing OF the law Of homicide, have reference to
this stage of the law. This absurd doctrine
never obtained in this country and never in
England since the statute of 9th of George 4th.
Numerous authorities upon criminal law
applicable to the case under consideration were
here cited and commented upon by General
Shepley.] ....... .t't
These, may it please the Court, and you, gen.
tlemen OF the jury, are the principles of the
law which you are to apply to the considera-
ton of the facts as developed in this testimo-
ny.
If the law be as have stated it to you, then
upon the facts OF this case as developed by the
government witnesses alone, upon its hypOthe-
sis OF the case, not as stated by the learned
counsel who opened the case of a man in
the hotel, where he had a right to be- and as
he said, hot in the commission OF any act of
violence but upon the facts of this case as
shown here by the government testimony, this
defendant has a right to go free. Without GO
ing into consideration of that portion OF the
case about which there is any CONFLICT III the
testimony, or even that portion of the case as
developed by the defendants testimony, and
which is not contradicted by the government
testimony, this man has a perfect defence.
Without considering his own testimony or the
testimony of any other witness, who gives you
facts in relation to that portion of the occur
| renee which the government witnesses did not
see, but upon the statement and upon their
hypothesis, without going into this defence,
that this man was making violent assault or
| an unlawful purpose upon that room; that he
was trespasser, trying to break open the
door of room, which he had no right
| to break iato, and that he was fore
| IDLY resisting, as LIE Blanc testifes he was,
| the man who was trying to remove him and
| insisting upon the commission of that trespass
and that he did forcibly resist the bar-keeper,
then according to these decisions, not only that
servant of the hotel, whom he was thus forc-
bly, and violently resisting and striking at with
| his fist, as the Government witness testifes he
was, to enable him to get to No. 19-not only
6a1 Shno rtexhf 20 4t,n
| he was making forcible assault upon him,
| who was trying to remove him from the scene
| of the trespass, but any inmate ledger or SER
want in the house, in the nature of the case
which have read to you, had right to kill
| him. -
| Now, gentlemen, have stated anything as
| facts in this case-have said one word in the
statement of these facts about which there is
| particle of controversy-about which there
| will be a particle of que stion? Is there any
| Doubts there any question-that this mao
was where he had no right to be in that house?
| Is there any question but whatever if he had
/ wife in that rOOm whom he was in search of
he was a trespasser, making a disturbance in
| that house, committing an act he had no right
| to commit? Ii mans wife is an in nate of
| your house, Mr.. Foreman, an occupant of a
| room there, or in the house in which you dwell,
| bas he right, therefore, to come and without
| previous neutrality-suspicious. notice to her or
| you-wthout any request tor permission to 60
| up there Ito make violent assault upon the
| door of the room she occupies aud Try to break
| the door oDen? Has he any right to break
your door down, without asking you TO unlock
| lt? Why, the question furnishes its own re-
| ply. Common sense would teach any man
| that this man was trespasser, wrong doer
| Suppose Murray had been indicted for trespas>
| or Il breach, OF the peace, what would have
been his justification suppose he had had wife
| there. d. you suppose that would have been
| his justification, without any other previous
request to be admitted, either Of his wife or
landlord? Why, be might as well say he had
| a right tn burn the house down because bis
| wife was in there. The same thing that would
| justify him to break down the door without an
| effort or request to enter peaceably. would JUS
| tify him in pulling down the house. No per-
| son can doubt that this mau was a trespa-s r
| IN that house. No person can doubt but that
| this man resisted by all means in his power to
| the utmost and to the last, and to the time
| when he fell or was thrown down those stairs
| and it don't weigh a feather whether he was
| thrown or fell. l have no doubt about the
facts; there is no cooflict in the testimony, but
| it don't make any difference in the case. From
| the time he commenced the assault upon that
| door up to the time that he went to the foot of
the stairs, he was continuing that ire pass, and
| with fOrciole attacks upon the persons who
| were trying to induce him to 90 away and push
| him away from the door he was trying to break.
| There is no question about 1T; it is all proved
by the government witnesses, all that L have
| stated to you, and under those circumstances
Shea had right to kill him, Murphy had a
right to kill him, any servant, inmate or ledger
would have right TO do it.
Now, what did Murphy (ths defendant) do,
Notwithstanding to the cases that read to
| you-when he came up to that corridor right
TO shoot that man, having used all the force
that he could against the person of Shea to
continue that trespass, what did Murphy do?
Leblanc testified that he said "hold on! hold
ont! He did not see him strike him; he did
not attempt to strike him, but he did take him
with his hands under the shoulders and push
him along the passageway. Now, gentlemen
is it likely that Murphy, being called up there
by his son. who told him there was q disturb.
ance,-having had the character of peaceable
and humane man, a kind father and affection.
ate husband, having treated this man Murray
with kindness, having advised him for his
good, trying to induce him to become a sober
man. and having acted the part of kind friend
to him, that he should 20 up there and his first
exclamation be "hold on, hold on" at a time
when Shea was trying to kick him,-that he
should prevent anybody else from striking him,
for the sole purpose of deliberately killing him
with malice aforethought. Is it not more rea-
sonable to suppose that other expressions were
used, which, owing to the fact that they were
in an unknown tongue to this Frenchman,
(who could not utter word of two syllables
in Euglish) made no impression upon his
| mind?
Murphy on the contrary tells us what the
consultation was. He says that more than six
times he tried to prevail upon that man to go
away-that the man persisted in going back to
| No. 10, that he kicked and struck at him, that
he got him to the head of the flight of stairs -
/ t.ar nhadf hat inf