, 1873-02-23

| had decided that. L man waa indicted for mur-
der; the jury found him guilty OF man.
alaughter, and his counsel took tho position that
the crime, il he committed it at all. was murder,
and carried the case to the Supreme Court for
decision. They held that, although the evidence
might have shown the man to be guilty of
murder, and he ought to have been convicted
OF murder, get, II the jury, having power to fix
| slaughter, he had no right to complain.
IT WAS PROPER
for the Court in determining the question to
take into consideration the result Of granting the
| motion for new trial. If the Court decided the
manslaughter under the testimony she YVES ac-
quilted Of all crime, and at liberty to 60. The
doctrine in many States was where person was
indicted for murder and tried and found guilty
OF manslaughter, they we're acquitted Of murder,
and could not be tried upon that charge again.
unless they killed another man or woman.
He SUBMITTED
that the instruction defining involuntary man
slaughter, as given to the jury, contained every
word OF the statute relating to granddaughter It
WAS well known that person on trial for murder
could be convicted OF manslaughter-
The Court Ito Mr. VanBuren,-1f your posi-
ton be correct il granted the motion, and the
woman WIS put upon trial again for man.
slaughter, You might turn around and say it was
willful aud deliberate murder, and procure her
acquittal on that ground.
Mr.. vanBureh was not specializing or looking
forward to what the consequence would be Il
Justice were done to the defendant.
The Court remarked that he was Obliged to
look at the consequences
aIR. VAN buren, CLAIMED
that, in the disposition OF the motion, Justice
should be done and the law correctly admins
tered. Whatever might be the result of new
trial, the question should not enter into the
present discussion. The questions for the Court
to consider were, whether the verdict of the jury
was wrong, and whether there had been error in
the trial of the woman. He did not complain OF
q verdict in his favor but he bitterly complained
of an outrageous verdict for which there WAS no
testimony.
TIE COURT REcoLLEcTEp CASE
that had been cited d,-McNeils, because he was
subsequently tried before him and convicted.
He had had some conversation with Judge
Rogers, who granted tho motion for
q new trial in the case referred to.
the trial was granted WAS thathe Qaogers) was
satisfied that the defendant, if guilty Of any
offense under the law, was guilty Of the crime Of
murder, and tha! he was not satisfied that the
evidence Was sufficient to warrant his conviction
for that crime. IN the Boyce case he took
different view. II the jury had seen fit to con-
yict her Of the crime Of willful murder, he did
not think he should have beon disposed to dis
turb the verdict. He listened to the evidence
with close attention, and, although he had no
ties Of doubts, if the jury had brought in YER
dict Of murder be should have felt that the eyi-
dence WAS sufficient to sustain the coviction.
The question was presented whether, the jury
having convicted her of the least offense which
Was included in the Indictment, and Of which
they might have convicted her il satisfied by
the evidence. he should disturb the verdict be-
cause he might be Of opinion that the evidence
would have justified them in finding her guilty
TIE GREATER oFFESsE.
He was aware that it was question Of come
difficulty. If he granted a new trial upon the
distinct ground (and that was the only ground
upon which he could grant it) that, under the
evidence, the jury might have found her guilty
counsel for the defense might openly and boldly
take the position that the defendant was guilty
OF the crime Of murder, and claim that because
she guilty Of willful murder she could not be
ha
not guilty OF murder that there was no eri- |
dence to ahow that she Was guilty Of that |
crime. That did not follow, by any
Il the }1sy ,t 9aw taaa there oa raa ha
quired, under the law, to acquit her, although
the7 might really and honestly believe that |
she WAS guilty. For aught he knew, that was
The position the jury assumed in the Bogee case.
He WAS inclined to leave the responsibility OF |
deciding the question with
TIE SUPREME COURT;
It was the only way in which questions OF the
kind could be settled He thought they ought |
10 know whether the Supreme Court Of Illinois
would follow the ruling of the Supreme Court OF
see that any wrong had been done to the |
woman he ives inclined to oyerrule the |
motion. If he could feel that the
slightest wrong had been done to her
without moments hesitation, and grant new
rial Such however was not his feeling, and