The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-06-22

was that when crime was perpetratsd BY the
wife, IN the presence 81 the husband sne
was exonerated, because sne acted unaer
MA coercion. The court had called atten-
ton to the distinction that where
band IN the presence oil the WE, the prosecution
must show that II was perpetraied DY the wlie IN
order to convict. suppose stranger entered q
house ana never returned. Suppose three DAYS
aiter that the BODY o. the stranger was found con-
cealed IN the bedroom where the husband ahd
wife nad slept ana that was all the proof Who
then, was TO 90 deemed the murderer2 where
was the presumption then Did 1t fall upon the
wife We're tweiPe great sLalWart III n TO sag thab
IL was the weaker women who committed the
violence ana not the stronger husband. IL ne
proved that the husband was present in that
house at the time, the prosecution naq 10 PROVE
that the woman used the violence which resulted
in death. General Tracy then considered the eYt.
dence that had been pl esented as bearing on the
question OF violence. The only witnesses on tnls
point were the woman Kip aud The man Coe.
Counsel Analysed the testimony OF these W T.
nesses, CLAIMING that " was very Trajectory
on some points, but showed very plainly that
MerIigan elt Tue house after the crime was
committed. They had tne TACT that mans
voice was heard. showing plainly that
ne was participant In Ghe. struggle, and wo-
mans voice was heard remOns tratinQ against the
violence. General Tracy referred TO the course OF
the District Attorney In re0pening the case after
the defence had been disclosed 10 introduce tes-
um0ny 10 contradict his own witnesses anu snow
thar tney mad perjured themselves, IN order TO
prove mat Merrlgan was not at nome on that day.
They nad taLed, IL was SHOWN clearly That Aer-
rigan was nome at dinner on that
day, ana ne was there with MarGares Ham
hour from the Tune OF TIE occurrence. M s. Kipp
had tesuned 10 having neard IA struggle, ana that
was the only evidence OF violence. The prOsecu-
non now asked Lnem 10 ulsoetleye the statement
OF Mrs. Krpp that Merrlgan lett the honse otter
tine struggle. II sue was unworthy OF oeiief on
tnab point she was unworthy or behel on
the evidence OF violence, and II that VAS taken
away there was no evidence against the accused.
IRe " hole case was involved ia the deepest mys-
terry. How that woman came 10 be dead in tnat
aoly never would KNOW If the body
min It was certain sue came 10 her death be-
tween the I'd 81 september ana the night Of the
IRE "a that mouse. Nnat possible motive could
Mrs. Merllgan nave 10 cause me ueath " Maggie
HamInn she was
HER FRIEND FROM CHILDHOOD.
They were at school together, she stood as god
mother TO one OF ner children, and Ia all things
Their interests were Identical. General Tracy con-
Guided MS adufe > az recess with stOng pre-
sental0n oil the want oi motive on the part vi the
prisoner to commit the crime, and SAID That the
defence were wllng 70 let tue case 20 60 the jury
as ~ stood. without introducing any evidence.
After recess General Tracy said he supposed
that IN accordance with a Nell recognized rule or
law there would be no summing up of the case on
nehalf OF IRE people. ig WAS Well settled that
where no eylaence was IN troduced by the defe nee
there should be summing up Dy the prose-
cutlOn, as mere would De Two speeches Tor one
side ana only one on the other.
Assistant District Attorney Moore denied this,
anu insisted upon his right TO address the jury.
Judge Pratt saiu that heretofore the practice mad
conclusion OF eacn case. lie did not ike 10 MAKE
an innovation on the old rule ana thought
Mr. moore CUul0 proceed. Inc Abol5ldub
At lorncy then proceeded to sum up the Case Tor
the people, and urged conviction for murder In
tie rrst degree.
Judge Pratt then charged the jury briefly. he
held that ii the jury believed tie husband was
present when the crime was committed, and 10
was not clearly proven that the VIE was a par.
tlcipant, tney should and verdict OF acquIttaL
Al haEpast three O'Clock the jury retired 10 de-
nberate upon verdict.
DISAGREEMENT OF THE JURY.
The jury returned to the court room al eight
A. NJ. and stated, through their foreman, THAT
there was no possloilty OF an agreement, as they
differed in regard to u question OF fact.
Judge Pratt said IL was not the disposition OF
the Court to force verdict from them, out "
there was possibility OF an agreement ne
would send them out again. Ii was I'm
portant tnat the case be disposed OF. After some
further discussion the jury again retired. They
returned AT nine O'Clock and announced that IL
was Impossible for them to agree. Judge Pratt
thereupOn discharged them. 1t is said they stood
ten for murder Ia the second degree and two for
acquIgtal. Upon the adlournment OF the court
Mrs. MeTngan was taken back 10 Raymond Street
jan. where sne has been confined for nearly two