The New York herald., 1870-02-23

q an ne question here was whether tho
prisoner at the lime OF the oct labored under
any degree Of insanity, and although physicians
might consider q man insane who was out OF the
ordinary course the law did not consider man IN
sane who was eccentric IN one particular point. The
rule OF law was that man VINO knew tne ACT he was
committing knew its consequences, ana VINO at the
time or doing the deed was responsible for such an
acf. He was disposed 10 add something further
tnau thai which had been already presented IN this
In order that the prisoner might nave the benc
III OF It. In addition 10 knowing the consequence he
should have reason enough ana power enough 10
apply that knowledge 10 the act which he committed
But there was nothing SHOWN IN tine defence thar the
prisoner nad ever sustained any injury to produce
insanity. Again If the prisoners motive was tnelt
by killing Townsend he could have Stolen; but the
robbery, II such had been Intended was frustrated
by townsend taking the prisoner to the door. The
GSt act Of the prisoner was 10 go 10 the shoemakers
he sal down upon the shoemaker's bench and after
some slight conversation he concealed knife which
he ionild on the bench, and lett the place. He then
went into the next place, the grocer's, and going
through the 'front.' part OF the store went into the
back room and called himself the brother Of the de-
ceased In that there was nothing unusual. The
prisoner received the reply that he could not remain
there as there was no accommodations i0r nm.
nc saw IN that place two little girls. The
question was whether the prisoner went 10 Town
sends place TO steal, for on being questioned SUD
seqnenty oy the sergeant ne said he was q thief.
Now II there vas any truth in that II might open the
doorto the motive Seeing nobody on the premises
bur the Two children II was easy FOR him to crafty
his desire IN that respect alter the destruction OF
townsend. No evidence had been adduced TO show
that the prisoner was insane. IL was only from the
history Of the thar the Jury could be asked to
Infer insanity because all the physicians testified,
without any hesitation. tnat there never was any
thing eviGenclng insanity in any way, and they all
pronounced him to be. from the time they examined
him, perfectly sane man. Having further alluded
To the lega! definition or insanity Judge lngraham
concluded by informing the jury to be guided en-
trey by the evidence III the case.
The jury retired At ten minutes past two O'clock
In about three-quarters OF an hour they returned
into court one OF them Charles jones' being desir
Gus Of asking the Court whether verdict OF murder
III the second degree could not be rendered.
Judge lngranam explained that murder in the
second degree was killing another while engaged IN
committing felony
Mi. Howe said he would ask the Court to charge
the Jury that they had power 70 convict III the second
degree, and that such verdict would be valld and
Legal.
Judge Ingraham remarked that the crime Of mur.
der IN the second degreeldd not embrace The offence
charged here. lie would inform the jury, however,
that The punishment for murder In the second degree
was Imprisonment for life.
The jury retired again, but from all the symptoms
10 appeared as If an agreement would not be arrived
At The spectators were on the tip toe OF expecta-
shortly after four O'Clock the jury once more
resumed their seats wnen the same Juror (J0nes)
asked whether there had been any evidence, direct
or indirect as 10 whether the prisoner was insane
at the time OF the commission OF the deed.
Judge lngrahan-The only answer can give you
Is that there IA TO evidence o his being insane al any
time. the counsel for the prisoner has asked you
TO infer that he was insane from the books he read
TO you but there Is no evidence OF ms Deing insane
at any time whatever. so far from ms being insane
goes to show that ne was always sane
The juror SAID that when he alluded to indirect
evidence lie meant the circumstances surrounding
tue murder. the Inquiry was conscientious one,
US he meant to do justice.
Judge lneraham SAID that the only thing was that
the counsel for the prlseler desired them 10 INFER
that there was evidence OF insanity.
le Juror then asked was there any possibility OF
OF ns beng insane AT the particular time referred to-
Judge lngranan said thai was for the jury to
decide. There must be evidence that he was insane
at the time and II the jury came 10 that CONCLUSION
they had right TO acquit the prisoner.
Mr.. Howe suggested that the jury had power TO
find verdict IN q lesser degree for the same crime
The jury then reured ana returned into court
shortly before ive O'Clock ana returned verdict OF
guilty.
Assistant District Attorney Fellows moved for
Judgment.
Mr. Howe asked the court to defer sentence, In
order TO reyoive In his mind what course to pursue
regarding 3 motion for An arrest or Judgment.
Judge lngraham suspended sentence TIL this
morning.
The prisoner. who received the verdict without
the slightest change IN his expression, was then
removed.