The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1873-07-03
The WalwDrth Case.

In the course of his argument in the
Walw6lth case, to-day, District Attorney
Phelps said the prisoner was taught from
his boyhood certainly not to love his faith
cr. He regarded himself as the only pro-
tector of his mother, and his mind filed
with wild thoughts, no wonder that he was
at times sieut and distracted. After a ST.
lence of six months this boy receives an
other and reads 1t. During this time his
uncle writes him to accompany him TO
Europe. He sends the last letter of his
father to his uncle with one of his own.
which has been read. OF what does this
letter tell 1t tells of deep intent formed.
and we know that il has been accomplish
ed.
AT the Walworth trial, to-day, large
crowd was present Charles O'Conor con-
cluded his plea for the prisoner last night,
and District Attorney Phelps, to-day, ar
gued the case forthc prosecution. lie con.
troverted the claims of the defense that
the prisoner was affected by either epilepsy
or insanity. Mr.. O'Conor for defence
then made several requests to the Judge to
charge the jury, including one, that he
charge that the facts as proven do not show
deliberate purpose to murder that if the
accused believed the deceased to be desper-
ate, it initiates against the theory of muir
der in the first degree, and if the act was
the result Of terror it was not murder in
the second degree. That as four shots
were fired the prisoner was only conscious
of firing three. and as no proof is given
which of the four was fatal the jury must
acquit that if he was in state of epilep-
tic insanity he was not responsible and if
he was in a state of terror which overcame
him, the jury must acquit without deliver
ing charge. The Court took recess.
The Judge commenced the charge between
/ and o'clock.
After defining murder in the first and
second degrees, Judge Davis continued
DECEASED CHARACTER.
Whatever the deceased's appearance to-
ward the world his character, as shown by
the evidence before them, toward his wife
and children, was despicabe beyond des-
cription. According to the evidence, he
said, for they could not have the deceased
before them to explain his letters if they
were capable of explanation, but jurors
must remember that all men, whatever,
without regard to their moral or physical
characters. their habits or deserts were le-
galy under the protection of the law. The
wild notion that they might open the grave
of the deceased to show that he was so bad
that he ought to die, must be entirely dis
carded.
EFFECT OF A BAD CHARACTER.
The court then read from charge of
Judge Munsell, that testimony of bad char
acter of deceased person could not be
regarded as any justification for his death.
The lowliest men are under the protection
of the law with the highest in the land.
THE POWER TO DECIDE.
1t may be that Walworth was unfit to
live, but the Judge to determine that did
not sit in this seat or in that jury box. The
only One to determine that was the AL
mighty and omniscicnt Jndge.
PARRIcIDE.
The dcfcnccs were twofold First, that
the prisoner was at the time insane Sec
ond, that he acted in self defence. The
second he proceeded to consider first, and
warned the jury that there was no such
crime known to the law as parricide or
matricide or fratricide, however well the
names mi.ht he used in common cOnversa-
ton nor was this court to take into con-
sidcration the laws of ancient Greece or
Rome or China, where special laws were
enacted for the punishment of those who
killed their parents In the eyes of the
law this crime was homicide. and was no
greater than the killing of a stranger, and
therefore the same rules were to be adopt
ed as in trial for the killing of IA person
other than his father, and the prisoner is
entitled to the same consideration in re-
garding the question of justification.
HIS FEARS FOR HIS MOTHER.
His honor charged, however, that the
jury should not regard the fears which the
prisoner entertained for the life of his
mother They could not be regarded as
any justification of his crime that they
should only regard those feass which were
personal. The law did not make it justifi-
cation when the killing was done through
fear that that the life of another was in
danger They could, however, consider
whether the fear that his mothers life was
in danger did not give point the fear which
he entertained for his own life on the
meeting on the morning of the 3D. of June.