Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1870-12-02

! of England applicable to cases ofthis character,
! have been modified by our Statute. The
! Statute of the State prescribes the rule defin-
/ itely and clearly so there can be no misunder-
| standing in regard to it.
Murder in the first degree, is murder with
express malice aforethought. 1t has beer
truly said by the counsel who opened the
case for the State, that when homicide Is
proved, when the fact of killingis proved, the
| law implies that it was done mallciously.
| That was the common law doctrine, jury
would be authorized to find it, were there no
mitigating circumstances proved by the gov
eminent or the defendant, that from the Kill
ing alone, it was with express malice afore-
thought, at common law.
But our statute has modified the rule by
providing, that murder in the first degree
shall be murder, killing committed by express
malice aforethought, that is actual malice,
what in law is actual malice rather than what
may be implied from the act of killing alone
Now the theory Of the government here is,
that this prisoner at the bar is guilty of muir
der in the first degree. The counsel for the
State has told you, that under the facts. under
the government, no other verdict can be found
in this case; that is if the defendant is guilty
at all. if he committed the act without justif-
ton, or without such provocation as would
reduce it below the crime of murder, he did II
OF express 1i1lllCe anu tiielSioiS
it must be murder in the first degree.
Well. gentlemen, are inclined to accept
it, and we present the case to You upon that
issue made by the State, and we shall ask you
to determine whether, when all the facts and
circumstances are developed, the pris-
oner at the bar is guilty of murder with ex-
press malice aforethought. And it appears
to me that the counsel for the State is cor
rect when he tells you, it must be murder with
express malice aforethought, if it is murder at
all, because the theory OF the government en-
braces nothing else. and upon that issue we
present this case. We do not wish you to
consider this as case of murder in the second
degree or as a case of manslaughter, but we
shall ask you to consider it upon the theory
of the government. which they have selected
and in your verdict to determine whether the
prisoner at the bar is guilty of murder with
express malice aforethought, or is not guilty.
Now, gentlemen, so far as the question OF
fact il regard to the homicide is concerned.
there is no controversy. We do not contro-
vert the fact that the prisoner at the bar
caused the death of John b. Latin, in the
manner set out in the indictment, that is, that
he caused his death by the mortal wound in
tiicted by the knife as set out in the indict-
ment. Admitting that, gentlemen, then adj
nit the next proposition which follows. and IN
you upon the law as understand it.
The next proposition that follows legally is.
| when the prisoner at the bar admits the kill
| ing, the burden is upon him to show some JUS
| LITIGATION. either arising from the facts ard
circumstances proved by the government, or
from evidence put in by himself; and we in
tend to try this case upon the principles of
law as we understand them. Where the bur-
den is upon us we intend to take it, asking
Won to consider this case upon the law of the
land as you may have it from the Court. If
upon that law the prisoner is guilty, then it is
your duty to say so. If he is guilty by the
law of the land, it is not our duty by any sub
terfuge or any art to screen him from the pun
ishment which the law metes out to him.
Then, gentlemen, admitting the killing,
what is the jus ificatien of the defendant aris-
ing from the facts proved by the government
or from the defense, which we intend to make
upon the evidence which we shall adduce to
you. We intend to satisfy you, gentlemen
that John b. Latin was guilty Of the crime OF
adultery with the wife of the prisoner at the
bar
Before commenting upon that branch of
the case, however, it is proper should say
something to you in regard to the prisoner
something in regard to his history, to his
character. His parents were born in this
tionalty is concerned, his father was Ger
man and his mother of Spanish blood. He
was born in September, 1928, and is therefore
Al years old. His mother died when he was
seven. his father in 1856. He was born in
Pautucket. X. ]. He was first married there
to Catharine Dub I'd, in lS49 or 1880: she
died in 1859, leaving no children. He then
lived in Lawrence, Mass, where he lived sew
eral years. He there became acquainted with
his present wife, whose name was Norton
and married her at that place in the fall of
1861. She had been previously married to
John Z. Smith, but for some cause unknown
to us had been divorced. She is now "a years
old. They lived in Lawrence less than a
year after they were married, and moved from
Lawrence in the early part of 1862. While
in Lawrence the dett. was on the regular po-
lice force in that city for two years, and a
member Of the special police two years longer
He moved from Lawrence to Piedmont, N.
Y, in 1862; he was there about one year
Then he moved to Hudson City, lived there
five years; then to New York City, lived
there seven months. He moved from New
York Cay to Hermon, in this State, where he
lived seven months then he went to Lewis
ton, was there few months then TO Ames-
bury, Mass, where he resided about three
months, and from Amesbury he moved to this
city, in the fall of 1863. His trade is that of
painter, and that has been his employment
for years.
We shall show you that before this trans
action he had always sustained good char
| acter, the character of quiet, peaceable,
gentlemanly man in all respects, with the ex-
ception of extreme inordinate jealousy. The
only difficulty, so far as we can learn, that he
ever had with any human being, has arisen
from jealousy of his wife. Naturally irrita-
Bile, and extremely jealous, it has been his
misfortune to suffer from those two passions,
Unfortunately developed. Aside from that we
shall show you that there never has been
aught against him. A man of correct habits,
man of correct character. correct deport-
ment in every thing, so far as we have been
able to ascertain
Now, we come TO the question, first, wheth-
err the deceased was guilty of the crime OF
adultery with the prisoners wife, and if so,
whether that was justification, being taken
in the act by the defendant; and secondly,
we shall present to you the question of the
sanity or insanity of the defendant, at the
time Of the commission of the act. We
| maintain that upon either ground, if we satisfy