The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-04-21

killing Of " stscp by Violence, as alleged In the in.
s IL meant to show that the accused CON-
mil.ea ne act which 0ccasoned his DEATH and 1t
must now from the facts and circumstances gath
ere from the case that she intended to Kill him;
!. intent to kill must be established TO make out
ne offence in the highest degree-that is the
charge OF wilful murder.
There must be shown by ordinary presump-
ton that the prisoner charged with this crime
was responsible being at the time OF its being
committed, and this must be made out before the
party charged with the crime can be called upon to
enter a defence.
AS TO the intent, 1t Is an emotion OF the mind and
person is held In law by the intent to do that
quences Of the act Now, here, on this question OF
intent to KILL provided 1t be established that the
kill rests upon the ground which may be briefly
stated as follows:-
First, deadly weapon proven; second, the dis
ing therefrom. These facts are usually c0nsid
cred to demonstrate the intent of the kill
away by the person who committed the act. II
this intent was formed at any time before the per-
formance of the act or even at the very time OF
the striking Of the blow or the pulling OF the
trigger it Is OF much force II 1t had existed
much longer; this must be settled In your minds.
that they had made out all these elements and that
the question had BECOME tit for the jury; the Court
hed SO also and It became the duty OF the defence
to proceed with their evidence. When the prose-
cution did rest the defence proceeded to unfold
their defence, around which all the opposing forces
centered, that of temporary insanity, and on this
tied. The prisoner, however, 1t must be observed,
Is entitled to present as many defences as may
seem advisable to herself or counsel. On her be-
hair more than one defence is set upon this case.
She has right to say-frst, that the offence has
not adequately established by sufficient proof not
withstanding she has offered testimony in her own
behalf IT. In your honest Judgment, guided by
conscience, full and abundant case has not been
made out by the prosecution then you do not need
to resort to any testimony for her exoneration
The second proposition is that Of justification, In
that the deceased seized her person with feonious
fnf pnt ar wi
and that to free herself from his grasp discharged
this weapon at him, regardless OF consequences
greater part of the time has been spent and touch
Ing which the greater part OF testimony has been
introduced and that IL, total or partial insanity
This is an insanity having direct and immediate
reference and connection to the particular act
which is involved In the offence charged.
Ii Is not claimed that there was any general In
sanity nor is 1t necessary to establish that. IL Is
claimed with reference to this particular act that
the accused was an irresponsible being by reason OF
a temporary dethronement OF reason The statute
has been correctly quoted whichis, that no person
can be held responsible Tor the offence COMMITTED
Just. Because person deprived OF reason, God
knows, is sufficiently punished without being sub
jected to the visitation Of human punishment
We are now upon the sixth day OF this trial, and
count fifteen witnesses sworn on the part or the
defence. The whole case is about to be committed
to your hands. You have sworn TO deliver true
verdict between the people and the prisoner and
we all feel that, with heavens help, you VIII keep
your OATH 1t Is the duty Of the Court to say
word of caution. The case excites great public
attention and comment both far and near On
your part you will see to 1t that public
sympathy on the one side or prejudice on
the other shall not influence your verdict Popa-
shall not, influence your deliberations In the jury
room nor the Court at any stage OF the case II In
your judgment there should be verdict Of acqnit
tai 1t is your duty to say So II on the other hand
you hold her guilty 1t Is equally your duty to say so.
qnences upon those who have invoked them and
which are established by the law OF the land.
n se is n al nas a
offence was intentional and premeditated IN order
to constitute murder In the first degree.
Manslaughter In the third degree Ia defined by
statute to be the unintentiOnal killing of human
being when 1t Is done by a dangerous weapon, and
sufficient to justify the act. 1t may therefore be
your province In case the sanity of the prisoner Ia
established, that II she did XIII Watson 1t was done
under circumstances that make the act manslaugh-
ter In the third degree. OF course II this shot was
necessarily discharged or, according to her own
own person, the law says 1t was case ofiustihable
| homicide.
| made out she must 90 free, and If you have any
reasonable doubts either OF the guilt or sanity OF
the accused she Is entitled to the benefit Of those
doubts and therefore to an acquittal. Good char:
| acter Is always an essential element In cases OF
persons charged with crimes, and sometimes the
| entire previous career Is taken into consideration
show the jury that crime OF this nature was I'm
possible by the person charged with It, With respect
to the terrn reasonable doubt IL is conjec-
ture but reasonable and substantial doubt, such as
may be entertained by intelligent men, and IL rests
either upon the absence OF some essential point In
| the evidence or some connecting link. had in
tended to say word with respect to the doctrine
of temporary insanity. I hold in my hand the &C.
| count OF the trial Of Samuel NJ. Andrews, charged
| with the murder of Cornelius Holmes in Massachu-
setts in September, 1858. The defence set up was
was was established without a doubt The two
men had been ftiends and there appeared
be lack of motive and Was iSs SIea
| took place, made will in favor OF the person who
took his life, and there was then motive explain
ing an otherwise strange affair. The case went to
trial and was fully presented upon the question OF
| temporary insanity. 1t was shown that the pris-
had been unquestionably insane and yet that up to
| the moment when he was charged with the crime
he himself had given no symptom Of alteration OF
mind. lie was man OF fifty years OF age, had lived
blameless fe and insanity In his had been
supposed. The two chief witnesses were DR.. Choate,
BY the eesnee They had opposing
views. DR.. Ch0ate had grave doubts; indeed lie did
Dr. Jarvis, on the other hand maintained that it
| was well known feature developed by scientific
| investigation on the state OF the human mind DR..
Choate was asked to make general statement on
| this subject, and had never known OF case OF
insanity originating and terminating. In q
single act OF violence, and that he had
never known such case to exist; but he says
| that motive Is material consideration, and
then goes on to Indicate how the act OF an insane
/ person may be disting uished from that of sane
person. He also says that the insane do seek Sc
cresy in the commission Of crime, as do those who
subsequent conduct OF the person where there is
night attempt at night Is indicative OF insanity
and ne says that when the offence Is contrary to
the whole tenor OF their previous life, that that is
also under control OF insanity. Now on the other
hand Dr. Jarvis testified that scientific investigation
by learned men has develOpcda phase OF the human
mind not before believed to exist, and that II was
known as transltory mania or temporary insanity,
and that, or course, 1t had aperiod OF ncuba ton
This is the chief element In this case and shall
not detain you long, but simply wish to give you
instruction which may lead to an intelligent con-
clusion In your minds
In other cases Dr. Jarvis said IL was not a new
or old disease, and that 1t was established by
the Courts. The indications by which an intel
gent conclusion could be formed as to the condition
OF mind Of the person committing the act he says,
Is sudden outbreak, subsequent camness, no.
adequate motive and hereditary insanity.
hold here compilation OF cases In which life
has been suddenly taken during the last twenty
years where motive could be ascribed for the
act, where the persons committing them would I'M
doubleday have suffered death unless the doctors or
the mind had been listened to in defence. And yet,