National Republican., 1876-11-10
GUILTY OF MiNSlAUGHTER
IConiinutd from Fir.i Pest.l

being armed or arms himself, and stabs him,
II is murder, no matter how high the assail
ants passion rose. To make one principal
aud guilty of murder 1t is not necessary that
be should infict the mortal wound. It is sufh-
cient If he be present aiding and abetting the
act, nor is 1t necessary that there should be
particular malice against the deceased. IL Is
sufficient If there be deliberate malignity and
deprayity in the conduct of the party.
Applying these well settled principles Of the
law to this case, who can for moment doubt
what the verdict must be! It Is registered
already, gentlemen, and was on that national
anniversary, and all of these poor, wretched,
guilty people willingly, wfllfully and of their
deliberate choice, for the qualification Of their
brutal passion, knowing It was wrong, COM
mitted murder on the body of Richard Lewis.
Mary Ward went for the knife. She brought
Il secretly and covertly. She attempted TO
conceal IL from the bystapders, and did so rom
some of them, then she secretly slipped # into
the land OF Norris, and with an eager, palpitat-
ing heart she ran back to the den Of shame IN
which she lived to await the close of the
bloody tragedy, of which she was
THE fR1EsTEss AND BLOODY QUEEN.
Do you not know, gentlemen, that she was
present, aiding and abetting the actl. If she
was there, she is guilty of murder In the sight
of God and man. That she hid herself or did
not stay to see the bloody stroke can make no
difference whatever as to her guilt.
You will remember the nod or signal which
passed between Mary Ward and Harris when
She went for the knife. There was between
these two prisoners perfect understanding.
She went for what be wanted, and Harris
wanted what she went for and brought him.
When she took the knife 1t was with fixed,
deliberate purpose to give it to Norris that he
might cut, wound or kill Lewis, and it was
no matter which, for If it was one or the other,
then there was malice; and If Norris COM
mitted only an assault, then Harris was only
guilty of an assault. If Norris committed
msnslaughter, then Harris was only guilty of
marslaughter. But If Norris committed
murder, then Harris is also guilty of murder.
These three poor, pitiable people, two men
and woman, were united on that, to them,
wretched day In common murder done by all
OF them, and they cannot be separated 10 the
united punishment or wretched fate which
must inevitably overtake them. They were
united in life, and they cannot be divorced in
death or in eternity. Some slight attempt has
been made, though in vain, to palliate the
enortniiy of Norris guilt by a suggestion that
he was drunk; that he was weak minded, and
that he had some provocation or in some
slight sense acted in self defense; but however
utterly weak, hopeless and unavailing for him
all of these suggestions are. for Mary Ward
or haIIl5 nOL even Gnooc pOOT pltliOic sHauOWb
exist, for there is no pretense that either of
them were weak, drunk or in jeopardy. They
are both utterly and entirely without excuse,
Justification, or palliating circumstances.
There is, then, for neither of these poor crea-
tuIes but one possible verdict, they are all
GUILTY, TERRIBLY GUILTY,
of the crime of murder, done with the utmost
deliberation, and under circumstances of the
most horrible atrocity. Are the witnesses all,
or any Of them, lewd and degraded women,
who live in brothels, and men who frequent
them? The prisoners were of the same class
or the associates of the lewd and abandoned.
Who else would be acquainted with these
people, and who else would be an eyewitness
to the transactions in which they were actorsl
Are the accused without witnesses? If so It Is
because all the bystanders saw the same
transactions, heard the same words and wit
messed the same bloody assaults. They are
without testimony because there are no facts
to speak In their favor, and the multiplication
of witnesses would only be to accumulate the
already overwhelming weight of evidence
against them.
The struggle has been for all the defend
ants to obtain q verdict of manslsughter only,
not because they were only guilty Of that
of1ense, but through appeals to your mercy
and clemency. The law makes the act muir
der, and requires that your verdict should be
according to the law and the evidence, and the
same law vests the power of granting clemency
ard the exercise Of the quality of clemepcy
solely and exclusively in the Executive. Let
us, then, gentlemen, all do our duty without
fear or favor. Give, beseech you, to the &C.
cused every right, privilege and benefit to
which by law they are entitled, give them the
benefit Of every reasonable doubt, but do not
wrest the law to the injury of public justice;
do not let the guilty escape, do not cheaper
human life, do not encourage murder and
slaughter, but say on your oaths whether or
not the accused are guilty, in manner and
form as charged, then, and only then, you will
have the approval of your own consciences and
discharge well and truly the highest duty Of
citizenship and humanity.
CHARGE TO THE JURY.
Judge Macarthur then proceeded to instruct
the jury, first reading the prayers of counsel.
He defined clearly the different grades of crime
of which the prisoners could be convicted un-
der the Indictment. He said that they beheld
The unusual spectacle of three defendants upon
joint Indictment tried for murder. He thought
this had rot before occurred since he had oc-
cupied seat on the bench. He then stated
anew the circumstances of the crime. Speak
ing of the assertions made In reference to
Norris soundness of mind, he said that sanity
was the natural condition of the race, and the
law did not impose upon the Government the
duty of establishing the sanity of prisoner.
He consi5ered that there was nothing in the
testimony to show insanity. He considered the
aspect of the case presented by the witness
Sarah Peppers the strongest for the defense.
This witness made the afray appear as a con-
tiDuous fight, during which the fatal blow
was struck. He considered the plea OF self
defense unavailable If the testimony of an
other witness was true-that the stick had
been taken away from Lewis. He could see
nothing that justified the plea of excusable
homicide on the ground of selfdefense.
Though the blow was struck by Norris, yet
others present and participating must be re-
garded as principals. If Mary Ward was not
present she should be acquitted; If she was
accessory, either before or after the act, that
was another offense.
In reference to Harris, he said that th,y
could not convict unless 1t was shown that
Harris knew Norris had murderous intentions,
and the mere fact that Harris passed the knife
did not prove malicious intent. They should
consider seriously whether there was any ne
cessity for givh g Norris the knife, and II there
was not, what was the motive, whether for
malice or that Norris might defend himself
If Harris had fear that Norris life was in dan
ger, it was his duty as man to give him the
means of protecting himself. 1t was for them
to consider Lot only the distress of the defend
ants and those ABOUT them. but they must also
consider the value of the peace of society, and
their protection from other similar crimes. He
could not believe that you will render verdict
of justifable homicide.
MIR. Browne noted exceptions TO express
s;ons by the Court, that there was nothing
in tie testimony to denote insanity; that II
Lewis stick was taken away there was no fear
Of danger to Justify the homicide; and that he
could not believe that the jury would render
verdict of justifable homicide.
DRUNKENNESS NO JUSTIFICATION.
Judge Macarthur said that he had forgotten
to speak to the jury in reference to the intoxi-
cation Of defendants. The use of liquor and
the condition of the party at the time of the
ofiense in regard to the use of liquor cannot
justify the crime. II man Is intoxicated,
that fact might be considered to determine the
grade Of the offense. The provocation of
words was not legal proyocation, but If a party
has been assailed, his condition as to intoxica-
ton may be considered In determining whether
be committed crime in passion or with set
tled motive.
The case then, at shortly before 3 O'Clock,
went TO the jury, and In half an hour they re-
tuned TO the court room.
THE VERDICT.
In answer TO the usual questions, Mr..
Nourse, foreman of the jury, replied that they
had found verdict of guilty of manslaughter
against all three defendants, and recommended
Mary Ward to the mercy of the court.
H.. - r..