The Tiffin tribune. (Tiffin, Ohio) 1868-1887, 1876-02-03
THE NOBLE HURDEK CASE.
Charge orJudse Pillars.

III the latter part OF June, 1875,
John Noble, then living on his farm
near Millbury, in WSOd Ounty,
Ohio, left his wife, because Of her con-
tinued infidelity to him. He then at
tempted to make an amica0Ie divis-
ion Of his property, with his wife,
and to take the children; bat, for
some reason, Jailed. He then COM
menced proceedings against her in
the Court Of Common Pleas Of that
county, for divorce from her, aud
for the custody of the children.
On the 26th Of July, 1875, his wife
came to see him, where he was then
living, being WITH a farmer in the
neighborhoOd, and wapted him to
agree, that, in their separation, she
should have, OF the children, the lit
tie girl. To this, Noble objected.
Words passed between them. Finally
she told him that be need not be so
particular about the child, for he
was not the father Of 1t. This threw
Noble into a most violent and uneon-
troliabie state OF mind. He flew at
her with club. She ran out into the
road, he pursued her, caught her,
threw her on the groHnd, cut her
throat with a knife on each side OF the
wind-pipe, stabbed her in several
places---perhaps fatally, and, when
she was on her knees, trying to get
up, he seized a stick, struck her on
the head with it and broke in her
skull, and killed her instantly. he
then ran to Millbury, jumping and
following like one insane, told what
he had done, and gave himself up to
the Marshal of the town. For this
act Noble was indieteI-HOr murder
in the first-degree-and was tried at
the January Term, 1875, Of the Court
Of Common Pless OF Wood county,
Ohio, which has but just closed.
The case was very ably cOnd ueted,
on both sides. The killing of Mrs.
Noble by her husband was not con-
troverted for a young man stood by
when it was doue.
The defense set up, was, that the
improper conduct OF his wife, with
other men, for several years past, had
brought the prisoner to q morbid
diseased, unsound state of mind, and
especially in regard to his domestic
affairs and, that, on the occasion Of
his killing her, she had touched him
in that very diseased part, aud in
famed and frenzied it, and thereby
threw him, irresistIbly into a violent
and insane state Of mind, which, in
his unsound and morbid condition,
was perfectly uncomfortable, for q
time; and, that killing his wife in
that state OF mind, he was not, in
law, responsible for it.
Testimony was introduced on be-
half Of the prisoner, which tended,
very strongly to support this posi-
ton. 1t was disputed with ability, on
the part OF the State.
The following Is the charge Of Judge
Pillars to the Jury, on the trial Of the
case
"GENTLESIEN-T prisoner, John
Noble, stands charged before you with
having murdered his wife, Harriet.
That he killed her, aad in the man
ner charged in the indictment, is not
disputed by him, but he sets up as a
defense, that he was insane when he
did It. It falls on him, therefore, to
prove to you, that he t01s so insane.
Evidence has been introduced tn you
by the prisoner, which he claims
tends to show this, and evidence has
been introduced to you, by the
State, which tends to contradict this.
This evidence has been ably discuss
ed by counsel on both sides, and It is
now for you to say what you find from
it. On this question Of whether the
prisoner was insane, or not, when he
killed his wife, the opinions OF nom
professional as well as of professional
witnesses-that is, Of those who are
not physicians, a. well a. Of those who
ara physicians-have been given in
evidence to you. In considering these
opinions and determining what
weight you will give to them, you
must look at the intelligence OF the
witnesses-at their means, op31rtu-
nifty and ability to form n correct
opinion-at whether the opinion was
a hssty, off-hand one, formed only
in a general way, or whether 1t was
thoughtiully formed ; and, with re-
spect to the lay witnesses, at the facts
and reasons on which the opinion was
founded. II now, you find, from q
fair prepOnderance Of the evidences in
the case, that the prisoner killed hi $
wife from the irresistible and uncon-
trollabIe working and drivinNof
diseased or insane mind, then your
verdict must be, not guilty.
But, II the pris)ner killed his wife
from the working and driving Of an
angry, passionate, enrsged state OF
mind, only; If the prisoner killed his
wife In an outburst Of passion or an
ger, though it may have been ire
sistible or uncontrollsble-if the vile
of the prisoner threw into his face
question as to the paternity Of her
children, and thus stung him to the
quick and threw him into fury Of
passion, and ifln this fury, though it
may have been irresistible and un-
comfortable, he killed his wife, then
you cannot find that he was insane
and return q verdict OF not guilty, for
that reason.
Now, whether the prisoner killed
his wife from the irresistible or uu-
eontrolIabIe working aud driving OF
an insane mind or whether he killed
her from an outburst Of violent pas
sion or anger, is simply fact which
YOU must determine fro. n al the evil
dence I'm the case.
II you find, from fair preponder-
anes Of the evidence, that he killed
her from, aud in such insanity, then,
as have said, you must Eequit but
If he killed her from, or in passion,
only, then you will determine from tie
evidence whether the prisoner is guilty
of murder in the first degree, or in
the second degree, or of nlansldu9hter.
To authorize you TO fnd verdict
Of guilty of murder in the first degree,
you must be satisfied beyond q reason
able doubt, that the prisoner killed
MS wife.
First: Purposely. That IL, that
when he killed her, he intended, pur-