The daily gazette., 1878-05-10
SECOND EDITION
Our County Court.
THE CASE OF HEY FOR ATTEMPTING TO
KILL KANE-THE JUDGES CHARGE
THE vERDICT-GRAND JURY DIS
cHARGED-oTHER BUSINESS.

THE CASE OF HEY FOR ATTEMPTING TO
KILL KANE-THE JUDGES CHARGE
THE vERDICT-GRAND JURY DIS
CHARGED-OTHER BUSINESS.
NEW CASTLE, May 9, 1873.
The preceding following those pub
llshed in yesterdays late edition are as
follows:
Mr.. Kane corroborated the testimony
of her husband, as published in this
mornings report.
Officer Cannon testified that a man had
come to him and asked him, "for Gods
sake to go with him to his house"
them. / went to the house and got there
just in time to see Mr.. Hey come out OF
his own door with lantern in one hand
and an axe in the other, and heard him
say, '1f you won't let me in I'll soon get
in" ! caught him as he was about strik-
ing Kane's door with the hatchet and |
threw him TO the pavement he was cut |
about the face; The wounds were done by |
me because he resisted
Brooks Foster, sworn:-My wife and l |
were at supper, when daughter
of Mrs. Kane came in and asked
my wife to come and stay with her
shortly after to the house of Mrs. Kane;
while 1 was there Mr.. Hey was going on
| in a violent manner; heard him say, 'if
you don't let my wife out will burn
your house; III come in with a
| knife" he came, at the door trying
| to get in; heard him ask for his wife and
| children; head Mr.. Kane say "they
to them;" saw Kane strike Hey over the
shoulder with stick; heard Hey leave
! the door and go to the back of the house;
saw Hey break in the boards of the
kitchen; saw him strike at Mr.. Kane
with the sledge hammer; heard him say
L f.V Ia oax
| kill you;" went to go to Mr.. Brady's for
la warrant and ran into the arms of MIR.
Cannon; helped Cannon put the nippers
i ON the prisoner.
Mrs. Kate Foster substantiated the evil
dence of her husband.
The State here rested the case, and Mr..
Bird, in a short speech, opened on the
part of the defence.
Josephine Ray being called, testified
as to having a conversation with Mrs.
Kane on the Monday following the dis
Jurbance; she didn't say anything about
Mr.. Hey striking at Mr.. Kane with an
axe; lived near the prisoner as neigh
Dor for about nine years; he alway bore
J good character; never knew him to dis
turb any are unless some one had inter-
fered with him. (The defence endeavor-
ed to show that there had existed i'll
, feeling between the two families prior to
i the recent assault, and that Hey's wife
i was IN Une buO
: testimony of the witnesses upon the part
. OF the State to the contrary
u VIM. III. Phillips, Margaret Palmer,
VIM. Cummlns and John j. Philips also
testified as to the good character of Mr..
! Hey.
, At 1:15 Court took recess.
: AFTERNOON SESSION.
: Court re-assembled at 3 o'clock.
The case of State Vs. Hey resumed.
3 defence, testified As to having been a
t witness in case of Hey assaulting his
wife, before Esquire Brady; the charge
: was brought up by Mr.. Kane; an abb
+ being proved it was dismissed; this was
six weeks after the assault occurred the
, prisoner always bore good reputation
d The defence here closed and the State
,. brought on the witness stand evidence
n to impeach the testimony on the part OF
0 the defence, in relation to the prisoners
n good character.
Officers Cannon and Whelau both tes
titled that the character of Mr.. Hey wa
very bad.
Mr.Pennington waived his opening ant
Mr.. Bird began his argument on th'
% part of the defence. His argument wen
TO show that an assault with intent Il
b kill was not committed; that it is shee
nonsense, he said, for one to suppose tina
O. such was the case. Why didn't he do it
He didn't even follow up the allege'
blow showing plainly that no such In
tent rested in his bosom. He was mere
ly in search of his wife who was in tha
r house. He thought that the Court woult
charge the jury to that effect; that ther
le was no evidence to warrant verdict il
accordance with the Indictment; that
r was merely an assault only, if ar assault
was committed; but this was not thu
case the man was in search of his wifi
a in the home of the Kanes, and l ask Q
II. you, said Mr.. Bird, verdict, not of a
b, assault, but verdict of acquittal.
Is Mr.. Pennington, in his rebutting said
don't expect that any argument tina
IL my learned friend has given you, ca
10 show to you other facts than those tht
have been heard by you from the vi
ness box. The circumstances are befor
IN YOU. There were witnesses (the Foster
AZ ~ in the house that evening that stand
N fair, impartial witnesses, Tree from pr
iudices, and wholly uninterested as r.
CARDS the conviction or acquittal of tn
prisoner. They were there as invite
VI guests at the house of Kane that HON
ir may be humble and it may be poor; b,
II as Lord Mansfield says, sit is his cast
and the King of England dare not tire
10 10 pass the threshold" That man (He.
III had no right to attempt TO enter IL
ot house of Kane and had Kane felled hill
N Nno to the earth, a corpse, no jury in Ne
~ Castle County would be justified in r
-: tturnlng verdict OF guilty OF murCe
~ ~ The argument of my learned friend hi
~ gone somewhat into the marital or soci
,, he relations. He speaks of him seeking h
ne wife. What did he want with his wife
as sls Is it fair to presume that he so loved h'
n cn that he wanted her and sought her so |
ses es to be with her? Nay, according to I'll
no testimony of the witness for the Stat
III III and corroborated by that of the defenc
Ill she had to flee time and again from I'll
fury of his wrath. The learned couns
has not shown the reason why his chel
acted thus in this instance. III tell 20
70 The reason is he had eaten of the insar
" root-he had drank too much whisk,
e land he was an infuriated, maddene
on man; and it will not do for the defense
IN come here in view of these circumstance
III to ask for a verdict of an assault, less or
'as o of acquittal. The interest of the ma
eJ must be judged by his actions, and 1t wi
its not the fault of the prisoner (Hey) tn
.se he does not stand in that box charge
an with the murder of Mr.. Kane"
his After the State closed the Judge char
ed the jury to the effect that they we
to determine whether Hey intended