The New York herald., 1876-11-03
THE FATAL PRIZE FIGHT.
The CASE OF wEEDEN AND HIS ASSOCIATES =
THE SUMMING UP AND THK JUDGES
cHARGx-A VERDICT OF MANsLAUGHrER
AGAINST AII. THE pRTSoNrRS


THE SUMMING UP AND rHx JUDGES
cHARGx-A VERDICT OF MANsLAUGHrER
AGAINST ALL THE PRISONERS.
sALrx Nov 2. 1876.
The summing up In the case OF weedcn, Clark,
Neary Coilyer and Goodwin, indicted for completely in
the Pennsvile prize night which resulted the death
OF young Walker, began here this morning. BY
mutual arrangement bctwccn tho District Attorney
and tho lawyers each to speak
. half hour. Tho FIRST speech for the defence
made by John H. Fost Esq, one OF the counsel for
wecden. lie said that the prisoners abored under
great disadvantages In not being able to procure tho
attendance Of witnesses, as, under the laws OF New
Jersey, nll spectators OF przc light liable to ar
rest and many who could give important testimony
fo- the defence had been afraid to como 10 Salem.
J. T. =. Hewitt addressed the jury In behalf OF Sam
Coyer and Colonel Caleb vacntno In the interest OF
Johnny Clark. He claimed that his clicnt had not
been implicated, except idle spectator OF tho
hight and had gone away when ordered by the sheriff
Henry /. Hope of counsel for Fiddler Neary, claimed
. similar defence
Colonel james " Scovel, OF Camden made the clos
Ing address for the prisoners especially In behalf OF
weeden- His argument was that Walker diod from
exposure and neglect after the fight and not from
beating and that there had been intention tho
part OF Weeden TO iniurc his opponent malicously.
The only crime that had been committed
was an honest, stand mp prize fight.
Tomake case OF murder, he claimed, the act and
tho intention must so together There must be malice
malice Is extreme cnmity OF heart, malcvolencc.
unproyoked maignity or spite, according TO Web
fight was sought from the other SIDE. He dismissed
the idea Of murder in the second degree unworthy
OF thought Even as 10 mansaughter the evidence did
show that tho blows given Wecden caused DEATH
If t was manslaughtcr at all must bc involuntary
manslaughter He claimed that the medical testimony
had cast doubt upon the OF Walkers death,
and that instead OF having been caused by the blows
from Wcedens hands, that y was probably from fatty
degeneration OF the heart and exposure and neglect.
This doubt he asked tho jury to the PRISONERS.
District Attorney Albert II. sape. in summing up
Tor tho prosecution asked for verdict OF murder IN
the second degree against three OF tho PRISONERS
Weedon, Collycr and Goodwin. Against Clark and
Merry be claimed that manslanghcr had been proven.
THE JUDGES CHARGE.
At twelve O'Clock Judge Reed began the delivery Of
his charge TO the jury substantially as foows:--
The questions before the jury were-nrst. did death
legally result from the injury the ring partly by
exposure and the disease Of the heart which tho phys
clan had testified to- II Walker died IRON the injuries
1t does not matter that he did not die the ground
Tho second question to the relative guilt OF the
prisoners. Wceden was not guilty Of murder in tho
first degree 1t either murder in the second degree
o manslaughter His guilt of murder in tho second
degree depended upon the kind and degree OF injury
tended by wcedcn 10 be inflicted upon his adversary.
The rule was that II person intending to Inlict
grevious bodily Injury, but not TO kill actually, docs
KILL he Is guilty OF murder NJ common law, and, under
the Now Jersey statute OF murder the second degree
Grievous injury means such hurt as Will likely
result permanent and dangerous injury TO health.
There had been, the Judge saId very little previous
opinion ns 10 the degree OF homicide resulting from
death In the manner OF Walkers. Justice Bagley said
merely with lists. where fc Is not likely TO be al baz
ard, and tho blows passing between them are not likely
TO cause DEATH II death ensucs IL IL mansaughter.
"nrhiing up and down was calculated TO
as weapon was likely to produce DEATH II It had
been SO used in tins case II was murder, not man.
eide from the evidence They must consider The cir.
cumstanccs OF the combat, the which II
conducted the absence Of the OF the fee the inter-
mission between the rounds. the previous physi-
this last had upon the dangers 70 llfo
On the other hand, they must consider tho
object tho BATTLE which obviously was 10 reduce one
OF the party TO such physical exhaustion to render
min unable continue tho battle. The jury must de-
termiLc whether there was purpose TO do the de-
ceased grievous bodily injury or injury that would
suit IN death. II the evidence had convinced them
that there was such purpose beyond reasonable
doubt, their verdict must be murder tho
second degree. II they had a reason-
harm their verdict must be manslaughtcr. Tho Judge
dismissed tho question as TO whether or not Walker
do with the guilt OF the prisoners That also dis
posed OF tho question Of malice Tho legal
definition Of malice was genera, wicked intent.
not y specific design against tho life OF the par
tcular individual The responsibility tor the deed
not limited TO the person striking. All who were
present aiding abetting and encouraging the scom-
batants wcrc guilty IN the samc degree she
bstants themselves II the jury be,eved tho evidence
that CoIlycr the second Walker and that Good
win aided Weeden IN the same capacity this aid and
assistance fixed their responsibility the degree
tho principals. As TO the other two parties,
Neary and Clark the evidence did not show that
either Ncary Clark were inside the ring; but they
outside tho ropes the crowd during the prog
OF the fight according the testimony. and this
fact, with the evidence that they there OF their
own accord, made them guilty of manslaughtcr. But
the jury remember that they must be convinced
that these two present aiding, consentng and
assisting in the fight. A casual spectator who hap
pened on the ground ought not TO bc considered
guilty, ono who purchased a ticket design
edy present would be, such person is considered
by the Law 10 be encouraging the fight
Tho only question before tue jury far as Clark and
Ncary concerned was whether not they werc
present with tho Intention Of encouraging
ing tho night. The doctrine has been need by
English judge that every person present at fight Ia
which death results 10 guilty. OF mansaughter Judge
Reed thought the doctrine little broadly
however II man were present giving encouragement
tho Eight hc would come within the rule alluded 10.
II he went with the crowd with some OF the par
ticpants. purchased ticket by cheering
betlng, renamed TO crafty his taste, he
sdcrcd by the law hiding and encouraging the fight.
But spectator might be there casually for the pur
pose OF seeing who the participants werc for the
sake Of justice. such spectators ought be
sidered criminal. The Judge concluded by charging
jury give tho prisoners the benefit Of every
sonablc doubt.
The jury retired about hal-past twelve. and after
lengthy absence returned with verdict OF mansaugh-
tor against all the prisoners
SAD SEOIJET, OF PARADE