Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1870-12-08

it cannot be done with safety. he will be re-
strained. On the other hand, if your verdict
should be such as to teach him practically
that he may do it with safety, he will de-
termine to execute vengeance upon his vic
tim.
1t the object of the law to restrain men
from yielding to such feelings of resentment,
by saying to him, that so surely as he does
slay his neghbor, surely shall he be pun
ished. The fear of punishment overcomcs
the temptation 10 do wrong 1t is upon this
| theory that all criminal laws are based.
| Punishment is not inflicted as an act of re-
talia,ion, but mainly as an example to teach
others that if they commit like offences, they
will suffer like punishment.
am by no means certain that the prisoner
at the bar, was not led to commit the fatal
act for which he is now on trial, by his know
edge Cfthe result of the Sickles and Mcfarland
| trials, and that those cases have been the
cause of many murders.
These cases, Il refer particularly to the
Sickles and Mcfarland trials,) are useful
only as beacons to warn juries against similar
verdicts. Their great notoriety is owing
mainly to the fact that they were decided
wrong. Intelligent and honest juries should
know them to shun them. My belief is that
lenty to such offenders is cruelty to the in
| nocent, that the Introduction of lax admins
| ton of criminal law sacrifices more lives than
| saves.
| do not believe that if the prisoner at the bar
| IS punished, adultery will be thereby en-
couraged. Adultery in this State is crime
Whoever is guilty of it may be punished by
imprisonment in the Stats Prison for five
! years, and there is no occasion for an in
| lured husband TO take vengeance into lis own
hands.
The invader of his marital rights can be
mis- had in, thor Ruf 10 arx
other person charged with crime, he is en-
titled to heariug. to have fair and impair
tial trial by jury of his country, as the pris-
oner is now having, before such punishmentis
inflicted
Laflins voice is now hushed in death.
Without trial, without an opportunity to
say a single word in dt fence, he has suffered
an instantaneous and violent death How
unlike the careful and tender regard shown
the prisoner. He has an opportunity TO be
heard, to testify in his own behalf, to have his
witnesses summoned and paid by the State,
to have the services of two as eminent lawyers
as the bar affords, likewise paid by the State,
while his victims lips are sealed in death, and
the only person living who know whether he
was innocent or guilty of the act for which he
lost his lite is excluded from testitying by the
prisoners objection.
Nothing could be more dangerous than to
posed guilt of his wife's paramour. The poet
quoted by the prisoners counsel. says ''jeal-
ousy is green eyed monster and Knocks the
meat it feeds on, and that to the jealous trltles
light as air are combinations strong as proofs
of holy writ" No better illustration of the
danger of such proceeding can he found
than in The result of the tragedy from which
this quotation is taken. Othello, driven to
distraction by his jealousy, killed Desdemona,
yet SIZE was entirely innocent and as pure as
snow.
1t was held many years 70 in John Mad
dy's case, that if a man finds anotl er in the
very act of adultery with his wife. and kills
him on the instant, and there was no prccVd-
ent malice, his offcnse is n m bre than man.
slaughter. But it was never held in any
case that the husband could lawfully kill he
adulterer. Such killing is not murder, but
ii is manslaughter. And it was held in that
case, that il the killing had been previously
determined upon, as would be shown by prev
ious threats or lying in wait, the killing would
be mansla lighter.
Such is now the law of this State. If a
man discover another in the act of adultery
wi h his wife, and in the first transport OF pas
sion, and without malice, kills him, the act Is
not unsuitable, but it is not murder; it Is no
more than manslaughter.
And, instruct you further, that if man
has reason to believe, and does in fact believe
that another is in the act of adultery with his
wife, and in the first transport of passion kills
him, the killing will be no more than man
slaughter, although in fact no adultery was
committed. A mans conduct must be ju iged
of by the facts as they appear to him, if his
judgment is not rashly formed, and not as
they may prove to be in fact
To illustrate: suppose one sister should
wish to visit another for some reason in dis
guse, and dressed in male attire should be
| seen by the husband to enter the winIow OF
his wife's sleeping apartment, and should get
| into bed with her, and the husband should
find them huggng and kissing each other,
and should thereupon kill them in the first
transport of passion, firmly believing, as he
would have reason to believe, that they were
in the act of adultery, notwithstanding no
adultery was or could in fact by any posi-
biiity have been committed, both parties be-
| ing of the same sex, the law would measure
his criminal responsibility as if the facts
really were as he believed them to be.
To apply these rules Of law to the case
at BAR If the prisoner at the time he
assaulted Latin, and inflicted upon him the
mortal wound Of which he Immediately died,
had reason to believe, and did in fact believe
| that he was in the act OF adultery with his
| wife, and this provocation was a sudden one.
and the fatal blow was inflicted in the heat of
| passion, and there was no precedent malice,
no watching, no lying in wait for the purpose
| of killing, the killing was no more than man
| slaughter. The killing would still be unlaw-
full, but it would not be murder; it would be
manslaughter. But if the prisoner suspect
ing his wife's nfideli,y, in advance went there
armed intending to kill any one whom he
should find in adultery with her, and there
watched and lay in wait for his victim,
the killing would be murder. And if this
determination was coolly and deliberately
formed, that is, if he with sedate mind and
deliberately formed purpose determined to
slay his victim, then the killing would be MUIR
der of the first degree. But if the determine
ton was formed in the heat of passion believ-
ing that the deceased had grieyously wronged
him by the invasion of his marital rights, it
would not not be murder of the first degree
The distinction between murder OF the sec
ond degree and mansaughter, is an all im-'
portant one in this case, and will make 1t as
plain as | possibly can. will first read to
| vnu tha definition of mans lHug hter, as con-