New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-05-25

decline TO charge twelfth exc Ut 20 car az It A
embraced IN my general charge.
charge the tEteenth II the jury find that tho prs
onort cole intent Ias TO commit on assault and battery
| niaDslaugbteri IN tho flrst degree '''' '"A-
charge The Fourteenth Good character of tho phi.
oleT - an cement which, proved the jury taks
me consideration IN making up their estimate thu
solnetmos geBciatc d0nt where without eyidence Of
good character no doubt would arise la The ths
Also the fifteenth The fact that the prisoner came for
ward voluntarily and gayo his that OF the un
known man who had made tie assault Il ono proper os
the jury to consider rs bearing up0n tho onestiou
whether he bad any int ntCn to mako fatal assaus
! Also tie sixteenth where Tho act 0f killing is I'D.
mite and tho ntent witt which tie fatal blow il given
Is IA doubt proofof good character Is material TO be
tike mo consideration by tho jury Affecting tho
having disposed Of tho requests to charge shall moi
cetain you long gentlemen, In prcseBtng this
siO snail not comment on the evidence Iscauae II
Old 20 should probably convey to you MY judgment Of
us enc ana might thereby influence your decision.
which have neither tho night wish W do beearss
the verdict you render yours and not mine.
ana You, NOT are re- pom ile.
Ny duty will have ben iully discharged when shah
stance Of the ana % the theories presented the
Tne prosecution Charges and hound p.ve that,
Avery D. Putnam received wound by a blow with 40
iron hook at 81 ne , hIds oil the 9a5 t aad st
Thare is little or no dispute by the prisoner fans far
But just here tho unfortunate question arises The prose
cuOn asserts that that Killing in view OF the crcuIa.
stances ATTENDING H. was murder IN ne first degree ard
that presents the principal question whic-appiyng the
law, give u to you, 70 tic facts the evidence
you shall fad them-y0u are 10 determine.
Before you can convict the prtsoner oi murder In the
rSt &c fee ycn must be satisfied fio the evidence Nc;
SO from premedtated design to effect his death, oui
that rTCnedated design need not to have existed fog
tt doasn was entertained BY Foster though YOU alsd
believe that he formed i Only on tie moment before he
struck tho blow, haG viii be sufficient sustain the
charge of Iremedtation Tue general theory Of the
prosecution is that Foster after the matter about the
opening and shutting o. the door OF the ear sat down
beside H. Putnam asked him Low ir ne meant to ride.
sfin had no response rom Mr.. Putaain, and
tlen, e!enching hi' fist beside eesiG, him, said "a
fiar as he Putnaml, ard before be LEFT tic car
would give MIN hell" Its urged, also, that Poster,
few blocks before reaching FoTtgixst, went - ths
driver d the car and ashod hni he had carlook and
when Mr.. Putnam was getting of Foster passed around,
boo the driver caught him or caught at t.n md tried
TO stay his hand bat did no1 succeed ada r Putnam
on the step, Foster struck one blowS-whch 1t IL
for you TO sayproducng tho injuries you have heard
e. wIen he died at S. Lukes Hospital in this city.
Now, gentlemen, have before observed, very little
excellent gentlemen who principally conducted the de-
ense with ehaga.is s sander yeT Goo Sar{ stated aS
zen tnf 9aGT ron N csnno What fbey dtn oe5
draw from facts which have briefly Narrated and
the other facts proven in the case.
These facts and the declaration to - Subway.
that Foster after the killing, said, TN tht nan-who
people to snow that Foster acted from pmedltatcd
design TO Kill Mr. Putnam is all competeH: evidence
Does it convince you that Foster meant to kill Mr. Put
nam, and Tat That ine2tien was the result OF lremed
itation as nave explained the meaning OF that term 70
you II it Does then, whether that bremeditaon was
OF long or short duration. whether 1 the IN
or but an Instant OF the fatal blow 4 the
design was 70 taLe Ne then the Ehg o. AsGry ~ r
nam by william Foster was murder IN the hrst degree.
and you must not hesitate You must not convict foster
because il you conclude. tue proof satisfies yon that
he has Geen brought within tho rules OF law which gave
patzq Win his family in tbs drosdiui e9tastIepho.
that must not influence your Vcrdict Aonr alty 10 h
dead to tae yng-yOul Ga, hs forbid it, On the part ~
the prisoner two principal grounds are assumed tIrs
that the facts relied upon by the people DO DO ma ou
q design TO KILL but only to be1t aBf, sscoIdy--ahd
this also heard bearing upon your hading as 70 l
first proposition that Foster was intoxicated sLan
There no proof In the case that II Foster were mtoxi
c1teG fhe fnfoxicaton was other than hos own voluntary
act. Voluntary ntoxica.ion furnishes no Immunity or
for crime, ana even wLcD ms here intont -
win not AFFECT The question Of the prsocls Sine unes
TIE condtlol OF ti3 oi-Ci'tyI N9 OF ,'.+t Va ~
feops act ct Keny 81 \ T. 5 wcn orc withoas
in degrees Of inoxicaton, short OF that which shows
that tie prisoner was at tho time utt5ily c3pbs3 OF
consequences u his acts. Unless therefore, you Ind
his condition at the time q this act his queLt
state at the time cf his crime to have been such hat
his mind was incapable % forming an intent then his
nfoxie9to1 doe Eot relieve him f0in the fiil couss.
queuces of his fearful deed.
this threat to give Mr. Putnam hell" and II declara
ton that he was the man Iat laid Mr. Putnam out,
rigid in regard 70 iutOX may bt held.
judging that You viii consider exactly what his state
justly deserve. And when you have done tha and con-
sidered in the light OF the rules have given yOu ali tho
evidence you Will say whether the premedtaed inteHt
As have mentioned 1t ia claimed by the learned coun
ell OF tie prisoner that the design 20 Kill nyt fairly de-
ducble from the proofs That gentlemen, is plrely
question Of fact Which belongs 20 YOU You must judge
OF it from all tho circumstances attending the act from
TIC act rs, H. the instrument embDyed ana the manner
IN which the blows were dealt There IL but little con
say to aid your deliberations on this point. .
strike another with his fists with light cane in mild
kill could not be said TO exist; but il he took heavy
iron rod and repeatedly and violently struck his victim
wilfdlly and intentionally upon those portions OF the
head where heavy blows are likely to result fatally one
a ASSAULT an nS to TO produce the result It, Which, ay
would follow frOm such an act. do not put that - be-
as rule law, but as sGggest Of reason which
you Will give only such weight as you think proper,
every Other question Of ct what constitution You put
upon it, and what inierencos you viii draw from this
If You DO believe that Foster had premeditated
intent TO mr. fnn Me-" besp % oen m eapSet8
under tue rules have given YOU to conceive delgn.
then the principal charge or murder IN NO nrst aegiee
fails and his crime is reduced to some grade OF man
slaughter which it viii become your duty 10 dsnae
gree vi homicide less than the principal one .lnk IL
only necessary that read TO yod the statute as 70 man
slaughter the second, third, and fourth degrees ter
saying 10 you that on the eNehee ~ u5 o",C' ~
believe that the killing was without Cesish ~ ehees
have explained you) you may convict OF L1nsauSn-
ter or ii you think that his g not 20 great rs that
then apply the facts Of the to the section OF le
statute now read and say Nlshh "heh you '.hA 'Ao
prisoner stands
should remark that no pretends that His IL .
of either cXcusaJle or JustiGoie Aonlelus aho
these, therefore, be dismissed rom your mnl.
The killing OF human being without design 10 enec.
death by the act, procurement or culpdYe heAhcoot
any when engaged IN tie preparation OF any crime
misdemcanor moi amounting 10 felony Is mahslAShe
In the first degree" That is say could he 50 under
the evidence ia this The killing Of y human be-
ing the heat OF passion but IN crCc and unus al man
ncr unless IL be committed under sch circumstances as
statntns dccllrn eXasabe or lMstllAnio nOode 70