New-York tribune., 1870-05-07
satisfied them by proof beyond all peradventure, that


jury to find verdict against the defendant ne was Oh
trial under indictment for that act. l., A., ..o |
IL the Jury believe, from all the evidence IN te s
that that act was committed by the defendant IN state
of insanity. they are to discard 1t from ther
The fact that the defendant not prosecuted Tor
that act is strong evidence that the act was
to be crime at the time OF Its COMMISSION. .
In passing upon the question Of whether that act was
or not criminal the jury to take into c0nsideraoh
der der in Defending himself against it, from the lapse Of
time since occurred, the disappearance or dspersonof
As TO the liegcd shooting of March 49, 1867 it is only
evidence against the defendant on the trial OF the
indictment the principle that that shooting ana that
OF November 25 1e occurred while the defendant was
in sane state OF mind. ,o.o
occurred while the defendant was In state OF insanity,
is unaffected by the act of March 49, 1869 even though
that act was committed III a state or sanity.
A CURIOUS ENGLISH CASE CITED.
Now desire II your Honor please, for few minutes
to leave the estimation In which afront to husbands
relations held In England centuries ago; and this
has sometimes been mstakingy taken as prece-
dent although when 1t to he examined 10 Will De
found to 20 almost the entire length to which courts and
ures in this country seem determined to CO. IL Is Ihe
case of John Manning reported in Raymonfs REPORTS
page 2l in first Ventriss reports, page l5S III seconu
Kebe reports, page S9 The case Is ths as repoeu III
Raymond: IT, A., ,,,,,,
osz@s , found that the said Manning found the person
and s!nng ionsd stool at him. and with the
killed him; and resolved by the whole Court & that t,s
the burned in ne hand aa n,ans, The fGS s,s
directed The eIeenttoner TO burn I'm Genay' because "e'e
Now the why that was Judged to be mansaagh
to the crown But the judges, in directing him to be
burned in the hand directed it to be done gently so h
there copld ne no greater proy0caton than Manning
had. In the Maritime Courts, where tmo me garSSed
as tatamoant to an acquiftal and then positive ac,
Qua directed but in the @ onas Jaw SpS cbae
they held to this nominal conviction OF tne crime,
Now for the enlightenment OF the Jury or carsv
men, if they committed crimes and were convicted, were
courts. and sfterward the Knowledge extended
itself so that laymen could read ana Write OUT
iavma they We're allowed to go clear where they
committed crime; and in order to show hat they nad
the right of clergy they burned i'll the Drawn Of the
left thumb. The layman had exemption only once and
to nT h m he Of ff the have
ferred TO this simply for the purpose OF showing that
ofese was considered perfectly excusabe that
the person permitted to be burned with an IRON so
will that under the auspices of the aged gentleman
who was here yesterday they have instituted here as
in the case Ryan. lie indicted for murder in the
Court oyer and Terminer for this County and tried IN
September 1923. He had killed the deceased because of
upon his trial, but derived from his statement at
the police court Ut IT WAS wa uav fsar Ha casH d OF VIEW or
and convicted him OF manslaughter The Court III
charging the jury went out OF It's way 70 express se
the subject of interference with the marital relations
This law takes ground that the husband has such
power over the person of his wife that he owns her ana
no man can touch her in his presence even with
her consent, without committing actual violence upon
the husband That has been the law of this state since
1925 and refer to it for the purpose OF showing what
correct estimate We place upon the value OF the marital
relation -,
The Court said il the Jury were Of opinion tathouch
the proposition does seem to have arisen from the facts
that prisoner committed the act while the deceased
was in criminal Intercourse with his wife, it would not he
murder mausaughter but would be justfiable
avail to extenuate the crime If in the hus
bands presence and under this law If this husband had
| la lad hta ifs
house Amtys he had just much right to shoot
him down II he had abducted this prisoner himself
/ And this is the law of the Bible. As understand
the law of our Bible is this: That man was made
! for God, and woman for man, and that the woman nan
was the weaker vessel is meant to he under the
protection of the stronger vessel man. The forfeiture
hands right az though it w,s the inction of violence
upon her or him one other citation Sir and then close
glsh jurors approach like this and how they
deavor to modify the law. The is that of Regime
agt. Fisher Carr and Payne, 49, 81 L; C. L. X, 3iS
The prisoner indicted for the murder of one Randall
who had committed an unnatural act against his
night following the Ofcnse, he met the deceased and
killed MIN. The jury convicted the prisoner of man.
slaughter and recommended hin 10 mercy on account OF
the greatness Of the provocaon and his previous good
mansangter there Is about tantamount to an acquta
here The agony OF that father could not equal the grief
of mansaughter subjected the party at the discretion
the Court TO transportation Tor not less than seven
i sn,I fine As the Court might stat; and thoash
the understanding of this this father was really
not reconcile himself to by the strict law, and they
convicted him OF an oAcnse which allowed the Court
case OF Keyes SEQ p SS2 and 1893 Judge Morgan held
that wbatey technical rules courts lay down jurors
will make distinction in cases of homicide between
those peptrsed III design and those III anger arising
out Of the of the occasion when they ten
accompanies the act and does not in the common
acceptaton of the term precede it, 1t is not strictly
true that intention which arises in par
oxysm of anger and accompanies that blow
can bc said to have been formed upon de
lberton In other words the meaning Of that sentiment
II although
eve TO he strict law to the jury yet they never dNproe
modify if not to out the instructions TO the jury
The GENERAL DENIAL OF THE DEFENSE
The point want now to draw your mind TO Is this that
there phase OF murder about this casehat is that
there is testimony here to show that when Mr. Me
Farland went to THE TRIBUNE Office, Mr. Richardson
expected there by the inmates of the Office that Mr.
Mcfarland expected or knew that he going TO meet
Richardson there. And say upon my brief he did
Office on the AFTERNOON the shooting There evi
dcnce that he knew anything about his movements The
last find in the evidence in reference Mr.. McFar
lands inquiry about Richardson the testimony OF
Mr.. IansOn, who met him. think, on the 10Th of Novem-
ber 1869. He making inquiries of Mr. Ianson to
Mr.. Richardson, and If remember the evidence arignt
he told him that he had gone to the state of Massachu
sets and that he was TO return either that or on the fol-
lowing day. But the evidence will state to you beyond
all Peradyenture that the object OF that inquiry was to
that in placing his hands upon his boy-who, with his
wife, were with RichardsoI-in learning the locality of
Richardson's he necessarily learned the locality both of
his wife, wife and M & Soy ta Sad 0f bis boy TheT ne is
no PROOF 10 SHOW tHdl lliE
TRIBUNE Office bat there is also proof show as
already suggested, that when Mr.. Mcfarland
there he expected 10 find Richardson there to have
Richardson come in after he got there that he had
any suspicion at all or had any night to indulge slS-
picOn that Richardson would he those premises that
afternoon Now, if that fact itself is not sufficient
rebut the idea OF prcmeditatiOn the part of
Mcfarland, is it not clear that Mr. Mcfarland was
fecy sane, and had wanted TO Kill Richardson, he would
have selected auspcuOus spot than the spot
he did If he went into THE TRIBUNE office nerved to
say l,chardson as matter of previous determination,
then it folly say that when Richardson met McFar
land, and put his eye upon him. he quaed for braver
chiyarous than Daniel Mcfarland If that be