New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-02-15


written It, for It was full of gross errors He smiled at
the suberuge OF counsel the opposite side In getting
The viii was full of iiterate mistakes. It was absurd
TO suppose that Mr. Taylor did not know the name of his
toned in the will was Henry b. Rowland. He had
spoken Of Kate Ivy her real name OF Vassar but always
Kate TAYLOR In the will shc mentioned Kate
Is. vasser, which showed that the forger had again
6gnsed in spelling the last syllable SC1 0 the
all tending show that II elumsy executed piece
of work. The evidence of the witnesses TO the will had
all been tmpeached.
Mr.. Clinton closed his argument for the day, but will
again for hour this morning, when the
will lie closed by Mr. ghtou who will occupy the
mainder OF the day.
THE MURDERER PURCELI,-A NEW TRIAL OR
DERED-IMPORTANT OPINION BY JUSTICE
INGRAHAM
The Supreme Court, General Term, met yes
torday TO announce decisions appeals recently argued
Among others decided the appeal taken in behalf Of
John Purcell convicted Feb. g. 1870, of the murder OF
William Herman. and sentenced TO be hung.
Presiding Justice Ingraham, in rendering the decision
of the Court justices Barnard and Cardozo sustaining
his views gives elaborate opinion showing, in the
light Of recent decisions the law Of murder, wherein
the Court below erred. He says:
There grounds which reyersiOn Of the Judgment Isl.
eags to the JURY 9e Evidence ~ the case on ,os par 81
with pistol and that such homicide took place while
the deceased engaged in ARRAY with brother OF the
bad weapon The killing took place sfer
bystander had pulled the deceased from the brother At the time Of the
firing the prisoner declared he wOu get hung for somebody end
turned around and shot the deceased Beere the secea A
the deceased who theeupon struck him several times There was e
b s1 ias aS f,D srs s1 S r d % He
70 the when son one A he shot ns @1D be bad
killed him. he said iii did intended to- be licked and my
glad Of it, be could catch aud swing good any young TEL
evidence part the defense showed that the prisoner l
not es s9 s siIa! oaa h t sr sb per.o
ard the prisoners refusal allow his brother to tight the deceased
70 flow his be also called him Knocked him down and
him saying be would nj the two OF t9em vas vile The oroh'i
va. lying on the floor that Che pistol Va 5i o r.,. that o Wit
res for the prosecution dd not zee ANYTHING previous 70 e n
him The related by the witnesses for the defense show that tie
attack on tie mad taken p SGIe se oS o DtT &
denc ay1g aside ihe declarations a The prisoner aet we shoons
quarrel previous that meeting and this assault vas made BY e
made Immediately after the kngtat intended and he
I'm bin and that he Wa d that he bad te hwre mae gne'
the excitement caused by che assault on him and his brother ma by e
deceased and Of Themselves hardly justify the presumption that the
heat o. passion and without premetson properly easel the
degrees because wants the evidence Of preeston
am aware that the learned Recorder submitted jury hi, ques
passion du only the errors Of law under the
was against weight Of evidence justice requires new trial
ne s T ,b oon1 fP tb gef declares an Gg.
eraaed which would fully the conclusion that the whole
committed the heat Of passion the verdict finding The prisoner
e 81 u vS 1ro tat the facts showed case IN which the lib.
ing uGse least excusbe think not Although must
have been produced by the conflict and resulted from sudden passion then
exhibited there does MOI appear 70 nave reh u s'lHd l1 W
fear personal injury and that the danger Of It's beng &C.
oowpisled imminent ,,-- -, 49,
grades between murder i the tint degree
and mansggher in The third degree TIE ]g we're t ley n
reasonable doubt as 10 The prisoners sl OF We crime OF uu m e
they could ind him guilty Of msnughi'r 10 the thr degree
provided the evidence should have satisfied them beyond al reasonable
doubt the evidence being sufficient to convict o. man
slaughter 10 tie question would DC @
OF conviction for that oIelse bl "ItIe .e c' va " le l
ond influence the verdict whether al the degrees OF
| manslaugher were or were not explained
The charge upon the question Of fl character vas $50
The jury instructed that good character always proper subject
for the consideration Of The uthlt may De taken TO
where fall proof Of gmt exists ana me! OF se
doubt tie minds Of the jury 10 tbs extent fe not ID We
inconsistent VITA the lat decision Of The Court Of Appeals
in Remson 81 a. sgI ne ftOp Inc 1v"te ~ 'N
good character is always be considered by The Jury VI"
sometimes cause doubt where The evidence rs Pou,e as 70
the gt' and the charge IN tIs case as So'e qu,l ' ~
stauay differ from the rule laid down by Judge Allen 10 ne orh
case The subsequent remark however t9-t Gh5Ie ei %
guilt made out the proof tie evidence OF go j. ~
Uaratvey little importance cannot be held to he 10 accordance WIN e
decision above irrd to 1t has the effect Of taxing from he Jury e
right which belongs them 70 give tne evidence OF IA -
consideration the jury think deserves even III should so
bi dse ouy in form from instruction that Of avail
effect they should give such evidence Bot The evidence
did call for instruction upon the SUBJECT Of gO
testified He did not know that the
had been difficulty before that he never kn" h 10 ne III
In fact the whether he knew bis general character
The that Tracy did not kno~ an!th9g Of bsd nay
character had those who him Unless that
evidence the subject to 60 to the 1ry such instructions bfe" Use
the matter Of which there not sufficient proof
mmaa and while therefore are Of opinion that
this Judgment think the evidence did the verdict Of the
iury homicide committed during TIE heat Of passion with
murder cause, think tie Judgment should be reversed anu
tral oriered