The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-05-08
THE STOKES CASE.
The Motion for New Trial Denied,
All the Judges COncurring.
Judge Fancher Delivers the
Opinion of the Court.
STOKES STOICISM.


rendered. the court room was densey crowded.
The question Of the execution OF Stokes in accord
ance with the sentence-not as to the time, be-
cause that has already past. but eventually by the
decision OF the Court OF last resort Affirming the
sentence OF the Court below, and leaving IL to the
General Term to fix new date therefor or the
probability OF his evadng condign punishment alto
gether-s one that agltates the public mind to an
extent hardly appreciated in view OF The little pub
lie discussion that has lately taken place thereon.
Stokes apparent stoicism and reliance that his
case Is not at all similar to that OF Fosters who
was executed for his crime, or that OF Nixon
whose fate is as inevitable as that OF the
slayer OF Avery ID. Putnam, might be taken
up and rs Justly treated by the lawyers as symp-
tom OF insanity as any Of those numerous cases or
that peculiar disease which has So much clogged
the wheels OF justice OF late. However, one more
the last but one, legal stage has been passed. The
General FERN of the Supreme Court having yester-
day affirmed the sentence Of the lower Court puts
Stokes counsel to the dernier resort the Court Of
Appeals Another pause. Another breathing time
for the interpostion OF the usual legal bubbles and
the uncertainty that waits upon his fate.
Judges Brady, Davis and Fancher occupied the
bench The latter Judge delivered the
DECISION OF THE COURT.
Some important questions arise upon the executions
impressed me upon the argument grow out OF the
IS lss g. Sc jazz s i Ss &
Ss Of 3 his Ss @ to the ur he said
conceded it becomes the duty Of the prisoner satisfy
a e @ % s wn nnder as he
the absence Of explanation"
While + be conceded that the learned Judge in
this portion OF his CHARGE correctly stated the rule it
existed At common law It is equally clear that the
the first degree. defined by the statute of New York
An n the crime Of l. the intent
homicide marder word murder ancient assls
s score and
the sd0esss Sy La% s sand % aras4
q nns and IN dssTs
under lie Kings ssscs With malice Hsr @
sssse i Mhs h
design when the external Indicate the
It # aw
81 ar soq for 81 held that
an q, gEsP ssn' ss;s
whatever The natural immediate d his
S' said s0 sSs s
S 70 person malice primo
mo- to
Inferred from the commission Of the act The corpus
ST r. IL lis s
sfEf ai ssass
Of h. b neSsss s.S are ONT be
ssasae. produced MIN. presamss he
Se on Se
ston This is still the lazy q England. reg. Chap
T. assiss mem @ asis Il
81 the Sss'a Ne I'd q
Mcs be SS s the mp Of lay
Under the rule tnsrefSrs as exists a. Com
ie
Q! malice, then the crime Of murder is snicsny
proved. This stern rule OF the law, which at
a.
s"s W 1
is that the burden oi the proof after evidence
the mot oS k
ms BY! the intent with which The act committed:
murder SEs
purpose ss
IN
design 70 elect death before this can be Condition lor
I'M. ''s ssS and
s%aen which pre asnas
IS s
or premedtaed design to elect death IL the chief char
OF homicide, aud the Jury must determine whether on
sy net Re
n other
words where there Is an intention to take Life and the
gree The intention IS the criterion OF the crme . It
the @ qu our s "a ass
PA dss.ss as
In
sed BY q s0s @ as 70
take life tIae, p c., 4Sl; People Clark, N. Y,
II was said, IN The People Austin Park Com Rep,
rsn.ys hsS%cds but also from the
mat murder should include homicide when per.
Wihous TO TO eses
,hss nnS adopting the implied
ton was such as weqd ordinarily lead the result of
geston. and enacted section by which the language
p se nat to- Constitute %aTdd founded 1s on S
press design TO take lie, such circumstances as
10 This strong h sonSsd 'q ,se
1%s asd aessn w to se Of r
York define the crime in these words, % when hen
the Of any human 10 sei Sen me-
sw Of @ ssa Rs mi G And i Is me
der and mansaughter; me New York statute has el:
in place malice u Y, $685. The degree Of the pre-.
meditation requisite to the crime murder has not been
changed, but the statute requires, what the
did not, the Evidence Of the actual int non e xiii.
be inferred from the mere killing Two persons
may be at variance In field One of them Il aer
ward found dead AT common Jaw. when the homicide
was found to have been perpetrated by accused the
malice aiorcthought inferred but nnder our statute
the rule would be different 1t possible that the slayer
compelled to kill in seli-dcience or being assae
with weapon defended himself, and accidentally slew
his assailant The burden would rest such case and
Justly the prosecution prove the 10
kill The rule o. the common law has moi every
where prevailed in the United states In The
United States VS. Armstrong, Court O. c. 446
IL was held that though notice Is presumed merely
from the tact OF killing, yet the circumstances
offending The homicide may be such that the law will
Cart S. G. Law Rep. ABS Liv Law 275 the Court
held that when one kills another with a dang rous
weapon, and the evidence as to proyoca
ton and TO which was the assaian 4 incumbent on
"A verdict OF guilty OF murder. In The United states VS.
Gooding, u Wheat 49, Al in indictment under
the Slave Trade act the supreme Court of The United
states held that the burden OF proof in crimi