Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1873-10-18
LOCAL NEWS
New Trial Granted


urdsy last OF the murder OF Michael Hussey In
August last The prisoner was brought into
TIE courtroom with Michael Kane, convicted
Of manslaughter in killng his brother Who was
brought out Tor sentence,l al Few minutes %
n O'clock. and aPpearod In remarkably 20,
spirits. There were comparatively few ostsS,s,s
IN the courtroom. Several OF the jarors Who
lat IN the case wcre crescent
~ II:is the Court wac opened, and the pris-
oner took = seat near his counsel, Judge Rice,
General Henkle, and Mr.. Williams, Mr.. Har-
rington being seated on the opposite side OF the
General Henkle read the motion published in
IRE STAR OF Thursday, promising that some OF
the grounds the defence would not RELY on, but
hsd ineotrorsted them out Of abundant eau
ton. He did not insist on the attn, 5th and eth
grounds, leTrors by the cuurt1 nor upon the
9TH, charging misconduct by the jury, a. on in
y,stigation they found that Il could not he
ground OF rewly discovered evidence.
The following are the grounds as
signed in the mOtiOn.-lst- The verdict
was sgains; the evidence "a. The YER
dict was against the law. "a. The verdict WAS
against the charge BY the court 60 the jury.
ith. For errors in the rulings OF the court dur
ing the progress Of the trial 9Th. For errors In
the charge OF the court 60 the jury. 9Th. For
misconduct on the part Of the jury. 1th. For
sitting upon the jury. for the reason that they
had formed and expressed opinions adverse TO
the defendant before the trial Sth. For that
the defendant. since the trial and verdict, has
discovered evidence material 70 his defence,
and OF which neither he nor his counsel had any
knowledge until since the trial, aud could not
have discovered by reasonable diligence.
THR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.
Gen. Henkle then read an affidavit by Lang
don Smith, Who tcstifes that ON the night In
question 10Th OF August he Was employed as a
waiter at Abraham's booth, 90 yards north OF
wills, in which the homicide took place ami
in passing Wills he heard a party who he has
since learned was Michael HusseyD say: " 1 will
take you by the ears and bait your brains out"
that woman was then laying on Skaters
shoulder; that Hussey struck Slater, a tussle
followed, and Hussey said he WAS cut
THE THUG KNIVES.
Gen. Henkle then called attention % the evil
dence OF y. II. Duprez, who had testified 20
Slater having received three knives, lof the
New Orleans thug character and 20 account
for the same he read an affidavit by Calvin l..
Sayre that in MAY last he had been attacked by
body Of five men; thatin consequence Of the
threats made, being DESTROYS OF having the
means Of projection, he applied 10 defendant 20
get him a knife from one Thomas BOyland. in
New Orleans, and the defendant sent a dispatch
for the knives-one for flanagan and the other
for the atfiant-and they were brought here by
express. Also read the affidavit OF Edward
Kelly that hannegsn did not call for his knife,
and he iN.) took il. Also the affidavit of ellis
Key, employed at nr. Fibert's ofiice, who testi-
fed TO the knives being delivered, and that
there were but two, not three.
THE QUESTION or MALICE.
Gen. Henkle, after speaking teelingly of the
responsibility OF counsel 10 client, and especially
TO one whose life was At stake, proceeded 70 re-
x
quoting from the charge of the court, he claimed
that there was no express malice IN the case,
and no implied malice except A. 20 the charac-
ter of the weapon, and therefore there was no
murder He commented on the manner in
which the case was presented to the jury. They
were led TO believe that the knife was similar 10
one exhibited by the prssecutOn-a thug-but
there was 10 proof that such knife was used.
How could he have had any malice against
Hussey, 10 whom he had just been introduced,
and who was then partakTng OF his hOspitaltyp
He WOulu not claim that IL tnuOeanr
manslaughter, but did contend that he was not
guilty OF murder, as he understood the dehni-
ton of that crime. He further claimed that his
poor client the night in question WAS not in
condition TO form deliberate intent To commit
murder Drunkenness, IL Is true, is not an eN-
cuse for the commission Of n crime, but II
should be considered by the jury as 10 whether
he could have formed a deliberate intention To
take lie.
GOOD CHARACTER.
The defendant had proven a good character
at every place where he had lived, and was il
probable that, on the slight prOy0catiOn OF an
offensive remark, be would form the deliberate
intention % take life and carry that intention
into efect2 The jury had found that he had
malice, but they could only have 50 found on
the Presumption that he was in the habit of
carrying such numerous weapon A. the one
described. Although he owned a knife Of tho
dirk kind, he did not make practice of car
rryinE one except when out paying the hands.
be claimed that the jury ignored all the pre-
sumptions Of innocence. Gen. h. then referred
10 the affidavit OF Langdon Smith, and claimed
mat MS staIt ment COrresTOnQcd IN some
tpects with that OF the woman. He would not
ay whether IL was true or not, but would say
hat they were entitled TO have il 20 10 a iury
Mr.. HARRINGTON CONTENT TO LEAVE THE
CAeE WITH THE COURT.
Mr.. Harrington said that he would not dis
cuhs the facts, but would be content 70 submit
the case, as far as the government was con-
cerned, 10 the sound discretion OF the court, as
he felt satisfied that the prisoner would have
full justice done him. He also knew that the
facts were still fresh i'm the mind Of the court,
and 1t would not be necessary 10 again detail
Judge Rice inquired # the court would hear
any further arguments.
New Trial Granted.
Judge Macarthur replied that IL was unne-
cessary. he proceeded 10 decide, after remark
ing that such motions are addressed % the
sound discretion OF the court. The court was
entirely satisfied with the conduct of the Jury,
who for several hours delIbersted on their YER
dict. On the trial the jury was asked 20 acquit
on the grounds OF excusable homicide. The jury
could not have found such a verdict on the evf-
dence adduced; il would have been out of
place. 1t is pos Die barely under the evidence
offered that the prisoner was convicted of a
crime higher than that of which he was guilty.
Had the newly discovered evidence been offered
at that trial, it would have doubtless had an eff
feet on the jury, especially to the point in the
charge In which il is stated that nothing short
Of violence or fear of great bodily harm
is an excuse for taking lite. On the whole evil
dence before the jury they mig ht and likely did
infer that there was no prOyOcatiOn, but in view
OF the newly discovered evidence IL was the
safest course 10 give the prisoner the benefit of
il by granting the application. On the subject
of bomicides, he felt that IL was import ant for
the community that the verdict of juries should
be sustained, and although he had tried a num-
Der Of such cases, this was the first in which he
had granted a new trial. He had none of
them felt that degree Of doubt which he had felt
in this case; this doubt arising from the pre-
sentatiOn iof the afhdayits to-day. He would,
therefore, set aside the verdict, ana grant a new
trial.
Gen. Henkle asked that the case be continued
to the next term.
The court so ordered, and the prisoner was
remanded to jail.
RUN AND REMoRsE-AtteHpt Of a B0stoHidn 10
.ShgGFe OF his Mortal Cola young man named