Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1872-10-23
EDWARDS TBIAL FOR NURDER'
The Higher Law Plea.
THE sICKLKs CASE AZ A PRECl

/ Edwards, colored, charged with the murder OF
, Robert Humbird, colored, by shooting him dead,
/ On the 18th of August last. closed.
George freeman cOrroborated the testimony OF
I Cornelius Peak as to threats being made by
deceased 10 shoot Edwards, and to Peck inform
! ing Edwards what Humbird had said.
I ROjeTt HiGgety, bTOtheT-in.lsw of the accused,
| te-tified 70 Humbird having threatened 10 shoot
/ Edwards. On cross examination witness said
there lad been little difference between Ed
/ wards and HEmbird about his (E y wife; some
I time before Edwards had warned Humbird that
/ he must not go with his (E's) wife; il he did he
| would shoot him; Humbird promised he would
| not do 80, and they made friends; no pistols or
! knives were found on Humbird after his death.
! Mrs. Ridgsig, wife OF preceding witness, COZ
/ r )boTated his mOTy as to threats. On cross
| examination witness said that Edwards met
| Funbird near his (E's) house, and said BUD,
| caught you heading off my wife," HumSiri
denied IL, brit said he would 90 with Edwards
wife If he choose: Edwar ds said if he did he nut
| suher the consequences, and then Humblrd made
| the threat mentioned above.
Z. +. Moore testified that on the morning Of
| the homlclde he saw a man, whom he alter
ward found TO be HGmbird, ours ng and threat
| ening Il 2 wife of Edwards; some one asked
humbird If thai was his wife; he said, "No;
| IL l. woman ] have suffered everything about;
| balls ana almost death: il is a woman | keep
| he Grove her away from man VINO was talking
70 Ier; M eatening 10 cut her throat If be SAW
! her talking to the man again.
v Chde' BUctTsy and Isaac Gross cOrrObOr atec
! tie last witness in the main.
AicAdsl \ Rg testified tc having seen Humbird
/ wait Tor r awards wife, and go OF with her.
Several witnesses testified 10 Edwards good
| character, and the Rad reputation of Humbird.
The defense rested.
Mr.. Harrington said he wOuld not ask a YER
DICT OF murder, but would ask one OF man
slaughter.
Alter some discussion. in which Gen. Hinkle
SAID the defense would argre self defense, iust-
neaticn, and insanity at the time, lie asked
number OF instructions to the effect that III the
jury believed the defendant was insane when he
shot Hum bird be was not responsible; that the
Law fixed no duration 20 an insanity which ex-
cuses from crime Alro, that a man on being
assaulted Is not bound to retreat, but may pur-
sue his adversary and assail him it such pursuit
be necessary TO secure Ais own safety, and killing
III such pursuit was eXcusable.
The court instructed the jury as to the law in
the case.
-, Mr.. Harrington said he had no desire to argue
the facts to the jury.
General Hnkie desired until to-day to decide
whether be would submit an argument. "A
SECOND DAY.
On the court being opened this morning, Mr.
Z. A. Williams commenced his argument for
the prisoner, stating that few short months
ago be WAS happy man, but the peace OF his
home was destroyed After reviewing the evil
dence, he said that there was an un written law
which threw its protecting folds around the
prisoner, who was actuated by higher motive
than protecting his own life-that is, protect
Ing the reputation of his family. The deceased
had, as calmly as butcher goes to slay the OK
proceeded TO seduce the wife Ca the prisoner
Look at the evidence as TO how he treated this
woman, how he talked about her, and then see
blighted. While HeZekiah Edwards day after
day carried his hOd TO sustain his family. this
sedUcer was sneaking into his house. 1t was
surprising how much control the seducer had
got over this woman, whom Edwards had
sworn 10 protect. The heavenly Injunction
"Whom God hath joined together let
no man put aSuuder," was in force
to-day, just binding as ever before. The
unWIitten law comes in here, and gives the in
jurec husband physical courage to protect his
home. the crime of adultery and seduction
i he he aLfsrN
ventured 70 say that tor 20 years there hau been
10 convictions in this country for those crimes
After the seducer had been called TO account.
ard promised 10 cease his attention to this mans
wife, he not only broke that promise but
threatened her, drawing n razor across her
threat. lie comes again, and the wife Sc
duced from the path of viTtue-the Sanctify of
the home is again destroyed. Look at Edwards.
DOES not his very cOuntenance show the marks
OF care; does 1t not show suffering? In conclu-
sion, he urged the Jurors, those who had wives
ard sisters especially, TO consider we'll all the
circumstances OF this case-put Themselves In
his lEdward's) place and listen to the pleadings
as th at monitor prompted.
This was Mr.. Williams first speech on such
nomentous trial, and he was cOmplimented by
several members of the bar
Gen. Henkle followed Mr.. Williams for the
prisoner, and argued that Edwards was justified
in taking the life OF the deceased. There was
no testimony as TO the commencement OF the
difficulty, end il was fair to presume, as the
defence had proved the threats, that on the
parties meeting the attack was commenced by
the deceased. He would ask had they ever
heard of prisoner situated as this man is, being
convicted of murder or manslau ,hter? They
could lot have forgotten the case OF Daniel T..
SIckles, whose wife was seduced by the District
Attorney at that time. The law does not make
allowance for the killing of q man for seduction
unless he is caught in the act. and vet in the
case OF Mr. Sickles the jury found q verdict of
not guilty, and the case was not so strong a.
thiS-there were no threats by Mr.. Key. Is
The same law, or rather the same justice, not to
be melted out to this man, whose case is a hun
cred fold stronger than that alluded to above?
nr. Sickles knew all the grades of homicide
while this poor man knew nothing of the kind.
To-day hr. Sickles is the peer OF presidents aud
other influential persons Had he submitted to
the degradation his name would have gone
down in intamy. Why shall this poor man be
sent to the penitentiary for protecting his honor
and there be made 10 work and eat the coarse
prison food? Why any man would have done
the same. Who of you ito the .juryJ would wait
to hear OF the threats? Would you not 90 armed
high altar? There Is not man who would
tamely submit to the disgrace OF his home but
Who would be avoided by all his associates.
Gen. II. then read several English cases in one
of which the Judge after giving the law said TO
tie jury, ''if your verdict is not according to
law 1t will be beautiful in the sight OF God and
man. he found no objection TO the law as
that higher law has been recognized. There
would be no difficulty if his client was white
man, but unfortunately he was black.
MIR. Harrington said that he would not have
argued the case had il not been for the bold
stand taken by the counsel on the other side
He had never before heard an advocate urge a
jury TO overstep the law. There was 10 man
who accepts the Sickle's trial as law. He ali
hoTed the seducer as much as anyone; he could
see how Young, inexperienced woman could
be seduced, but lie did not believe in the seduc-
ton OF married women. He did not believe that
men should be killed fer intercourse with
married women. They had no evidence that
HumbTd had seduced this woman. He tho lght
that there was no necessity to argue the poiat of
obedience, and he briefly called the attention
OF the jury to their oaths and their duties.
THE JUDGE TO THE JURY,
Judge Humphreys said he felt il his duty to
further charge the jury that before they can
acquit the person they must be satisfied AZ the
time there was an actual impending necessity
for the prisoner to protect his life; that he had
reasonable ground TO raise such apprehension.
he felt Ii his duty also TO refer to the higher
law idea. They were 10 find only the fact for
society would not be safe when Jurors step out
side the facts. lie called attention to their
Oaths, and remarked that the higher law was
not the law of the land. There j. some excuse
where party seduccd is a pure virgin and
| also in the case of married woman who
/ Is The victim Of a despoiler OF virtue aud
| happiness No judge in such case would