New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1872-12-26
Was &c Murderf
Close OF a singular Tragedy

his case, and there were many reasons WHY
they should do so. In the first place. he
was stranger, and English juries have n
decided tendency to deal leniently with
strangers. Foreign offenders against our
criminal law have no cause to regret the ab0-
lition Of the jury dc f1edietate lagug by the
naturalization act of 1870. If half dozen
aliens had been on the jury which tried Mar
gueritc DiXblane, that viragO would probably
not have been so favOrably recommended to
the Court and the Home Office; and We can
not help thinking that this May would have
been more severely judged if there had been
German element in the jury that decided
on his fate. Then, he is young and hoyish
in appearance, for his age. conviction.
which must have been succeeded by q term
of penal servitude, might CRATE on the feel
ings of good-heartod men, who would think
that the prisoner, if set at liberty, after so
terrible warning, might redeem a life not so
far advanced as TO be hopeiessly ruined. A
still stronger inducement to mercy was the
consideration the suf'erings through which
the prisoner has passed. lie has been
snatched from the very jaws Of death. The
pistol did its work only too we'll on one of
the two friends, and the other was only saved
by immediate and unremtting care. When
the police found their way into the room az
ter the alarm was given, they found the de-
ceased on the sofa quite dead his waistcoat
and shirt were unbuttOned, and there was
wound on his right breast. The prisoner
was lying near, shot also through the breast,
in state Of syncope. For weeks he lay be.
tween life and death. So near his end did
he appear that magistrate attended to take
his dying deposition. At last, youth and the
skill OF the surgeons carried him through, but
not before four months had elapsed has he
been able to enter the dock and take his trial.
Such a period Of misery might seem to the
minds of jury net inadequate expiation.
Even assuming his guilt, he has bseu pun
lshed severely, for punishment must be esti-
mated by intensity as well as by duration.
These considerations might naturally dispose
the jury to give the prisoner the benefit Of
any doubt that judge or counsel, or their
own scrupulosity might suggest, and, as
might be expected IN such q case, Il sufficient
doubt did present itself.
The law applicable to the prisoners alleged
act is perfectly settled, and is strictly con-
sistent with reason. Any person aiding and
abetting another in committing suicide is
guilty of murder; and it cannot make any
difference if the two agree to commit suicide
together. In this case, if one of the two
causes his own death, and the other is pres
ent at the aiding and abetting him, and at
tempts also to kill himself but fails, the second
is guilty Of murder, for the attempt at self
destruction, Of course, does not affect the
crime committed against the other. This
otfense of aiding and abetting Herman Nagel
10 kill himself formed the charge against
May, and the attempt Of the prisoner against
his own Life may be put out OF consideration.
Did, then, May aid and abet Nagcl to kill
himself? This must depend Oh the evidence
that they had common understanding that
Nagel should be killed, and that, in pursu-
ance of this understanding, the mortal wound
| on Nagel was inflicted. The theory Of the
prosecution was that they went to 4 room for
the purpose Of committing suicide, each Of
them abetting and encouraging the other.
There was no evidence that May had shot
Nagel, but there was considerable evidence
that Nagel had shot himself in pursuance of
previous concert with May; and this, if ac-
cepted by the jury, was sufficient to justify
verdict of guilty. 1t was proved that the
two young men came from Germany with
considerable sum OF money, which they spent
extravagantly, and that at the time when
the suicide was committed they were both
penniless and reduced to despair The two
bodies were found close together in q room
which had been locked and had to he broken
open. Each had his breast barred; according
to the evidence OF Inspector Gill the waist
coat and shirt OF tine deceased were unbut-
toned, while the prisoner had on his shirt and
| trousers only, and his shirt also was unhut-
toned. These facts afford strong prcsump.
ton that the two friends did both intend to
kill themselves. Further evidence was fur
nished by the deposition Of the prisoner two
| days after the act, when he was supposed TO
be dying. This is confused and unintelligi-
BILE, but the prisoner stated that they had no
money left, that they cried over their posi-
ton, and that Nagel took the resolution Of
killing himself ''Nagel," he says, "did not
| tell me of his intention to take his own life
Or to shoot me. Wewere alone in the room,
crying. Then he fired on me, and also on
himself He had placed the pistol in such
manner as to cause him to die instantane-
| ously. After he had shot ne l had still
enough consciousness left to sec him place
the pistol on himself" A more formidable
piece of evidence was the letter found in the
bedroom of the girl Burgess, which admits
OF no reasonable Interpretation but that the
writer purpOsed suicide. Furthermore, there
is the direct testimony Of the Chancellor Of
the German Consulate to the effect that the
prisoner had confessed to him that he had
inflicted on himself the wound of which he
suffered. 81 must tell you," said the pris-
oner, "the whole truth. Herman Nagel did
not shoot me. He shot himself and then 1
took the pistol in one hand, and, opening my
clothes with the other, shot myself" Look
ing at this evidence, it can hardly be denied
that there was evidence Of common design.
As Mr.. Justice Grove justly laid it down, it
must not be mere temporary vacilating
threat, but design persisted in, and having
a real effect on the act. How far the evil
dence compels this conclusion we need not
discuss further; but the jury By their verdict
declared that there was room for doubt.
There is an alternative which naturally
suggests itself. 1t is that Nagel may have
resolved on suicide, and executed his purpose
on himself without any real cooperation OF
the prisoner, and that the prisoner, seeing
his friend fall, had then taken the pistol and
shot himself. In such case the prisoner
would not then have committed the ofense
charged against him. If there had been
something said about suicide, this may have
been the wild talk of two desperate young
men, and might not constitute such de-
liberate understanding and design as would
make May particeps c'iminis in the act of Ma
gel. The latter, more over, might have been
the stronger mind and the fiercer spirit; he
may have obtained and abused an ascenden-
cy over his comrade. The act at last may
have been sudden; it might even be that
both shots were fired by Nagel, and that
May, though dallying with the thought of
sIipila at laSt