, 1873-02-23
MRS. BOYCE.
Argument Of the 1Iotion for a New
Trial.
New and Important Points Raised by
Mr.. Van Buren,.
The Meaning Of the Term !" involuntary
Mans|aughter."
Judge Booth Refuses to Grant q
Rehearing.

Judge Booth Refuses to Grant q
Rehearing.
The argument on the motion for new trial il
the case Of Mrs. Boyce, convicted at the last
tenn Of the Criminal Court Of involuntary
1nanslaughter," " YRS heard by Judge Booth yes
terdaT morning. There we're very few people in
the courtroom although the points made by
M1. Van Buren, counsel for the defense, were
new in this State and very interesting.
a1R. VAN BUREN, SAID
the defendant waa indicted for {he villful muir
der Of Calvert n. johnson. There WAS but one
count in the indictment. The jury, upon care
ful consideration Of the testimony and the law,
IS given to them by the Court, found that she
Tas not guilty Of murder or manslaughter, but
OF lesser offense-invo1untary manElaughter.
In his motion for new trial he has assigned,
among other grounds, that the verdict was
against the evidence, and, although he had other
grounds which he considered equally strong, he
deemed that one inrincible. There was not 3
particle of testimony adduced to show that Mrs.
Bo5ce vas guilty Of
INVOLUNTARY MASsLArGHTEn;
&ere was not scintilla Of evidence which war
ranted the jury in finding her guilty Of it; and
ne nau r'shs 60 sno" tnA'' u tue jury naa not
ionno ner sullty .. Involuntary nansiauen1et:
tnes n'ust necessarily nave acquitted ne1 o1 AL
c1'"e' AZ eAneu 'ne a'tenl'on VI tue cour. 10
the statute defining involuntary manslaughter:
Involuntary manslaughter shall consist in the
killing Of human being without any intent SO
to do in the commission Of an unlawful act, or q
lawful act which may produce such q consequence
in an unlawful manner" If the statute stopned
there be orantea TINT thera 1n;obt b.va hear
...,o z,1.s,.;h1o ,-.,,a, fo. 49, ;,,r1 =, 80
some plaoslole EXCUSE 1or the jury Ill md
ing
TIE EXTRAORDINARY VERDICT
tbav ala find Rnt thara xyoa nrcr;ao.
:.1t
o''uoo e. =, a."asn' 'nSs "He4e eueu ln'o1o'Ais
killing shall happen in the commission of An un-
lawful act, which, in it's consequence, naturally
tends to DESTROY the life of a human being. or is
committed in the prosecution of 8 fe1onious in
~. ~. eere-1s iii ~ 5ea.sa, -.,l I'D,
to be murder" Hence he had right to claim.
beyond question, that the jury found that what
sbe did 1if aha did anvthinpl vas mt in tbe
,o,,,,,iao;o, ~
'onalnisslon u ............:
An UNLAWFUL ACT,
(which in it's consequences naturally tended to
destroy the life OF human being" OF that she
,,,,,o;t+ad any ac+ in +ha nrosacnrion of !, ra1o.
e... 10y - 49, :.s-a:... 80
tapsd au7 into o their tbev 1st
szzily have found her guilty Of murder. There
8ss not a particle of positive proof against
M~a norca Al tba +ast;nonv nrodrced
'' - e 1o,aa.4;e- 49, e;r.,naatsat;a r
py tne prosecu1'oh "as enean7'an.1ai' 10
that OF the physicians WAS theoretical The
theory was. that johnson received q blow upon
the side which gave him q "uerrous shock"
and That he was choked and then died. theory
which was to his mind both monstrous and ab-
Burd It was alleged that johnson was in the
nossession of a large sum of money: that the
aeferdnnt alone or with some other person,
rohbed hin. and while in The prosecution Of
that
.'FE1os1oUs INTENT"
inflicted tha blow which killed him. IF this
we're true, then the woman was guilty Of rnur-
der, OF Of granddaughter. It would be difficult
TO imagine how such q killing could be man
slaughter, yet vivid ina asio2tion might create
such an offenEe: but no imagination could
construe such q state of facts into
hv The statute. If the doctors were believed
fheu Johnson came to a violent death if the
other Witnesses, then Mrs Boyce stole the
bonds. and Bas connected with the inf1iction OF
the wounds that caused his death. The ir1v did
not believe this woman guilty, or that she was
accessory to tho killing, or they would have
lonnd her guilty of murder. or OF being acccs-
:ory after The fact There was apparent the
nuuniiatinE and lamentable fact that the jury,
who had sworn to try the woman upon the evi-
dence and the law, had imbibed the prejudice
against her-had believed her to be
FAD WOMAN,
and that che had stolen the property-iisbe-
ueved that she was guilty Of mur-
dor; but, carried away by the passion
tte appeals Of the States Attorney, desiring to
:onyict her OF come offense acquitted her OF the
,7aye ofYense she was charged with. and took
refuge behind s'inyoluntary mans1aughter" to
punish her for something which was not charged 4
IL the Indictment against her. There YVES no
such thing as involuntary manBlaughter" un-
der the statute, when there was felonious intent.
The books we're full OF cases OF Involuntary
nanslaughter, but mono Of them referred to any
fe1ouious intent.
THE COUNSEL CLAIMED
that the Court erred in refusing to permit him
to read medical works to the jury. The jury
we're tho Judges of the law as well as Of the |
facta. The testimony Of medical experts vas
md i, in cases Of this kind, counsel had right
to read law books to the jury and tell stories, |