Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1870-05-04
THE COURTS.

/ - ~ = -
oHrHANs' CoURT : fudge Prsu.-Tho
passing Of q few acts was tho sum total Of
the business Of this court yesterday.
...".. ... -
SUPREME CoyRr or THu DISTRICT or Co
LuMBfA.--Chief Justice Cartier and Justices
WJlle and Fisher sht IN 6dne yesterday on
the following casesi
THE NICHOLAS MURDER cAsE--A NEW rsILL
GRANTED.
United States vs.. Albert Nicholas. This
case comes up on appeal from Judge Olin's
rulings In the criminal court, where the ac.
cusod was convicted Of the murder Of his
wife and sentenced 10 DO hung on tho 18th
Of May.
Dr.. snodgrass aud Mr.. Y. Miller appeared
for the prisoner and Darlington for the
United States. .r I.l IiT
The frst exception Ia that tho court erred
In refusing 10 allow tho following hJpothetl-
cal case 70 DO submitted 10 DR.. Cox;
II has been proved that = man has, from tho
AEe Of twelve years, given Indications OF men-
tai imbeolllty, and has had three severe at
taeks q spllsn,y, followed BY further lndica-
wesss prsviou" e he homicide SsS 1iy rss
birth 70 still born. child, for. which he put
his house In monrnlnE, and that he expert.
said homicide, striking his head in the fall,
| AID u ie further proved that this man, without
AssiEnAble motive, killed his wife, TO whom
eighteen wounds on the head, and, at The
same time, KILLED his motherin.law with az.
teen dis,inet and dreadful wounds, and then
remained In the house with their bodies from
half 40 hour TO an hour and q half and when
the Officers came to the house opened the door,
s% se up q t sSS S ssS,S hsm TnS
oIin.ane at the time Of committing the homi-
DR.. @. had precisely testified as follows,
Witness IL . practising physician, saw tho
presence Of the counsel for the defeneei did not
make q minute eEAminAtioni asked few
questions to ascertain his conliiioni dlsoov.
that he had . weak lnteilset, regarded the
prisoner AZ being an imbecilei imbeeility 10 q
condition Of mind where there has been some
well as idloey, Those forms OF imbecilIty
which In early life are attended by epilepsy
Hs Pbs sSt e s SSd 20 q eS spIsS.1
may occur which may not be noticeable out
side Of the profession, The Intervals between
ep,leptis nts vary, aud the books record inter.
Witness described attacks OF epilepsy, some
Of which were more lntenao than others. Per-
Sio he s Ore SSsS ,SSy SsS nsns S "a r % oi
II. The description OF the prisonerIa eondI-
tlon, as glven in the evidence, was q pretty
Imbeeliiiy, when eonneetsi with epilepsy IN
early life, will sometimes re ult In homieIdAl
mania, and sometimes when not accompanied
By epilepsy. FH -.
erred In refusing to Instruct the Jury as fol-
lowsi H.-...-
II the jury havs q reasonable doubt a. TO
the case, either In reference TO tho homicide
OF me question Of sanity, the prisoner should
II the jury nnd, from the evidence, that the
prisoner 10 q man Of weak mind, and fully be-
lieved that his life was In danger from the do.
ceased, and committed the homicide, ne no
thought, in eelf'defence, although the olroum-
stances would not have caused such an i'm
preston on man OF ordinary intellect, then
he 10 not guilty OF murder.
Mr.. Miller argued that the court erred In
refusing TO allow the hypothetical case to
be submitted TO DR.. Cox. The practice Of
the courts, and especially OF this court, has
been and lie 10 allow counsel on either or
both sldes to prepAre such Hypothetical cases
and submit them TO medical experts The
people We. Lake, 2 Herman, 35s; NJ. Nagh-
tens case, 10 Cl. and Far, 2lO; Common.
wealth We. Harris, z Metc., 500; United
States vs.. McGlue, Curtis, O. c., 1, Elwell
on Malpractice and Medical Evidence, $40;
Bennett and Heard's Leading Grim. Cases,
1856 Mary Harris case, Sup. Ct. of d. c.,
pamphlets Minnie Galnes' case, Sup. Ct. OF
d. c., reported In the NATIONAL REPUBLi-
CAN.
He said that the object Of this practice is
10 get the opinion OF persons qualified to
form correct opinions In cascs Of mental dis
ease, upon certain statement Of facts, and
then the Jury, determining for themselves
whether such statement is supported by
proof, will DO able to call tho best medical
learning and skill to assist them In ascer-
talning the responsibility Of the prisoner;
and urged also that the court erred In over
ruling the prayer for the instruction granted
above. He said that the law once was, aud
perhaps Is yet, In some localities, opposed to
the enlightened and liberal doctrine OF this
instruction, but we hold that with the laws
Of Draco, the scarcely less sanguinary laws
OF England In the last century, and the slave
codes Of our Southern States, this remnant
OF barbarlc law has passed away from tho
District Of Columbia, and Is passing away
from all countries favored to DO governed by
progressive Christian Jurisprudence.
The instruction Is In accordance with rea-
son and all the analogies of criminal law
Commonwealth vs.. MeKle, Gray, 81;
Powers vs.. Russell, 10 Pick, 60; Cronnin-
shield We. Crouninshicld, 9 Gray, 524i Fife
State vs.. Merrielk, 10 Maine, 39S; Common
wealth We. Rlmball, "a Pick, $685. Leading
Grim. Gases, 35l.
The counsel for Nicholas continued fur.
Their, that the criminal Intent could not have
existed II tho prisoner honestly, though err
ronoously, believed that his life was In dan
ger Levet's case, Gro. Car, 1885, Hale, 40i
selfridge's casei Granger We. the State. 5
Yuger, 4S9; Wharton on Homicide, 2l2-O.
The counsel for the United States submit
ted the following propositions
First. That the hypothetical case submit
ted to DR.. Cox was properly rejected by the
court, because said hypothetical case was
not supported by the evidence, and was
therefore irrelevant, and because there Is no
evidence In the record tending to show that
the said witness had any special knowledge
or experience In reference TO the subject Of
insanity, or had any personal knowledge OF
the prisoner. (See Baxter vs.. Abbott,
Gray, ~, Commonwealth vs.. Rich, IA Gray,
1885, Caleb vs.. Tho State, 80 Miss, T22;
State vs.. Hlnkle, 0 Iowa, $50; stats VS..
Knight, 40 Maine, Iii Roscoe's Criminal
Evidence, p. o7o, Q Greenleaf, sec. 374,
note; What. u stiles Medical Jurlspru-
dence, "a and note.)
Second. That the defence Of insanity must
DO made out affirmatlyely, beyond reason
able doubt, BY q preponderanee OF evidence.
(see opinion Of Mr.. Justice wylle In case Of
United States vs.. Mary Harris, p. ITO;
Opinion Of Circuit Court OF District Of Co
lumbla, In case OF United States VS.. Foleyi
Opinion OF Chief Justice Hornblower, War
toms Criminal Law, vol. l, sec. I'll; Opln-
ion Of Shaw, q. j., Commonwealth vs.. Rog-
ern, and other leading criminal cases.
Third. That there Is no evidence In the
record tending TO show that the prisoner
struck the fatal blow In self-defence. "To
make homicide excuSable on the ground Of
self-defence the danger must be actual and
urgenti not problomatlcal and remote, but
evident and immediate, or the jury must be
satisfied from TIE Whole evidence that the de-
PENDANT had reasonable ground to believe
that he was In danger Of losing his own
life or sustaining grieVous bodily harm,
from which he could not safely escape"
The case was not argued by DR.. Snodgrass,
he waving his right to reply.
Judge Cartier said that tho whole court
concurred In tho opinion that Il was error
below not tohaye allowed DR.. Cox TO answer
the question 10 the case stated. Courts
could not interfere with the manner In which
testimony should DO brought forward, and
none could say what shape the testimony