The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-03-08

9eIences. the nrst being Justihabe or excusable
homicide. Gentlemen OF the jury was the killing
OF Donohoe by the defendant justi1able Was
there reasonable ground for the defendant 70
apprehend design on the part OF DOnohoe to do
him some great personal injury and OF imminent
danger that such design should be accomplished?
On . 1 this subject let me read the following
self is attacked by another in such
manner or under such circumstances as to furnish
take away his lie or do him some great bodily
harm, and there is reasonable ground for believing
the danger imminent that such design Will be
think he may safely act upon ap-
pearance and kill the assaiant, If that be neces-
sary to avoid the apprehended danger, and the
killing will be justifable, although it may after
wards turn out that the appearances were false;
and II there was In iact' design to do him
serious s injury, and danger That II would be
force OF the circumstances in which he
is placed, for that Is a matter which will
depended upon the relations existing between
Donohoe and the prisoner-the approach OF the
prisoner IN sacn manner, either 6y act or word,
relative positions to each other, and the opportuni
ties to apprehend the danger The law imposes
killing he can do SO in safety This is to be de-
termined by all the circumstances surrounding the
transaction but the Jury must be satisfied that
excuse. When man takes human life, upon which
the law sets high value 1t is required OF him that
was justified in doing what ne did He
must make that appear. If he does, then he
is entitled to acauttal otherwise he Is
not mean to stop here to narrate any or
the details Of the shooting Of Donohoe, You have
mented upon by both OF the counsel in the case,
and shall presume that all the facts and circum-
stances are fresh IN your memory. Take them
into consideration, and say whether. considering
them with their relation to each other, and taking
also into consideration the circumstances to which
was such danger to the defendant in this Case as,
under the legal rule suggested warranted him in
killing Donohoe. lfyOu find that there was, then he
is entitled to acquttal at your hands. But you must
be satisfied, as have already suggested. the cir
surrounding him warranted the act he
the second defence, is that Of insanity. The
answer that though he was not justified
in killing Dononoe he was irresponsible for
time the act was committed. The defence of in
sanity is said to be one that should be carefully
the case with all defences interp0sed. You Should
in considering the evidence not permit yourselves
to to be carried away by any prejudice as to the
sideration to which you may think 1t entitled on
the evidence which relates to 1t. Insanity or men,
tai alteration, the peculiar action Of the prison
er's mind, is claimed to be established by great
variety OF facts and circumstances showing
changes In his health, in his mental and physical
condition; also in his affections for his relatives in
his demeanor and conduct, and also haucinatiOns,
illusions and delusions which led to the i'm
Of ' the experts, II True, anu declared to be
evidence OF that condition of mind. You have
arrayed against ths-l do not pretend to present
you every OF the facts or circumstances or acts
IN detail, but have attempted to group together
those which have considered to be the most
tne to sp any e
meanor of the prisoner as shown by the witnesses
Tor the prosecution, with such opportunities as
they had OF witnessing; the official pursuits Of the
his visits to the Sherrs Ofice and his
conduct there; his appreciation of the criminal
ment to avoid arrest his card playing; the exist
ence OF motive founded on q threat uttered, fol-
lowed out and ultimately, executed; his conduct
Florence; his declaration that ii the law did not
avenge his brothers death he would; difference
in the opinions OF experts such as exist in this
case also the verify Of the Illusions or decisions.
Now, gentlemen, were these conceptions, percep-
tons or illusions disclosed by the prisoners obser
were they mere fancies which would yield to the
reasoning which would convince sane mind9 this
termine the whole OF the evidence in this case.
All these facts and circumstances to be considered
together are important and demand your close at
tention. It may be that the experts in some re-
spects differ, but, however that may be, their
opinions are not absolute. 1t remains with you,
on the snbect to determine the Condition OF the
prisoners mind at the time OF the homicide. You
are to give due weight to whatever facts and Cir.
tas sanity the denss isns
and also to those that are arrayed
sne to MS and
at the time OF the commission OF the deed for which
he stands arraigned. That insanity, considered IN
its legal aspect, may be stated thus:-it means
such defect OF reason would render the prisoner
unconscious OF the nature and character and con-
sequence of his act and Of its unlawfulness and
A man is by the law of this State re-
sponsible for his acts when he knows what he is
doing, Is capable Of distinguishing right from
wrong, understands the consequences OF his act
and that 1t IS In violation OF the laws Of God and
man. In other words. ii the prisoner was in such
lawful and morally wrong he is responsible other.
wise not II he was incapable OF distinguishing be-
tween right and wrong, did not know that the
act he was committing was unlawful and morally
wrong, you cannot convict him of murder.
And now, gentlemen, take up q series OF re-
quests which are made by counsel for the prisoner
and which am bound to consider and pass upon.
Some Icharge and some l do not. Those that
charge will read to you; those that refuse to
charge do not except, so lar as the charge may
make with reference to the rules by which you are
to be governed form an exception. One Of them
at e him ts e
presented himself to him, without any anticipation
or expectation on his part, he would then and
there see the deceased, and the prisoner was from
an association OF the deceased with his real or,
fancied troubles thrown into q state OF mind in
which ne was deprived Of his memory and under
standing so as to be unaware fthe nature charac-
ter and consequences OF the act he committed, or
to be unable TO discriminate between right and
very time OF its commission, he Is entitled
to an acquittal. Again, the jury have the right
from their own knowledge OF human nature and
the tendencies OF the human mind. In addition TO
and in confirmation OF the evidence OF experts to
say how far the causes relied upon to establish
on the part OF the defendant at the
time OF the commission OF his act were adequate or
Sufficient to produce insanity and did cause that
result. Again, that II the jury believe that from
any predisposing cause the defendants mind was
impaired and at the time OF killing deceased he be-
came or was mentally incapable OF governing him
self in reference to deceased and at the time OF his
said act was by reason OF such cause
that he was committing crime as to
the deceased he Is not guilty OF any offence what
ever II some controlling disease was IN truth the
acting power within him thc prisoner) which he
could not resist or II he had not a sufficient
use OF hts reason to control the passions which
prompted the act complained Of he is not RESPONSE
BILE; that II the PROOF shows that the mind of the
accused was In diseased and unsound state the
question will be whether the disease existed to SO
high degree that, for the time being, il over
whelmed the reason, conscience and Judgment: and
whether the prisoner, In committing the homicide,
acted from an irresistible and uncomfortable i'm.
pulse II So then the act was net the act OF volun
ary agent, but the involuntary act OF the body with
out the concurrence OF mind directing it. II the
prisoner committed the act in moment of
frenzy he cannot be convicted of murder in the
irst degree; II his mind was in that condition he
cannot be convicted OF any offence; that under
N pao 90 do fe pat