, 1879-04-06

]
| tion Ut the ''comu,on object" He conrended
that where several persons combined to do au IN
lawful ACT, the natural consequence Of which wa.
murder, and murder ensued In the commission O
| the act, every one who entered into the combina
| ton, whether present or not when the kill.
| ing was done Was guilty Of murder; bur- il
several persons combined to do IN unlawful act
snch US burglary or theft, the natural consequence
Of which was not murder, only those persons were
| guilty Of murder who did the killing aud were
present in the sense used By the law, or unless,
when the combination WAS formed, it was Under
stood that the act was be committed at all haz-
ards, and that personal violence was to he Indicted
II necessary to CARY out the act. large number
OF authorities were cited to sustain the but il
View which the defense had embodied in theis
Instructions, the Court, however, rejecting them
sTATE's-ATToRSEY MILLS,
in reply, eald 3F. Forrcc1 had citeu only English
cases ~ illustrate his position. Those decisions
lett out the element of absolute agreement IN the
part Of all 10 kill holding that. # ali agreed to do
un act which would probably result in DEATH all
we're guilty OF murder. They were mutually con-
far ~ these authorities we're concerned But those
OF America seemed To be harmonious. He then
vent on % 10 snow this BY quotations. especially from
Of al the conspirators tor tue acts Of one was de
nitely settled. rh1s unanimity was emphasized
and made binding tn Illinois by a decis-
case OF Brennan (June term ls54),-a decision
"hlca absolutely coniradlcted the position based
On tue Euylsh aushor'tes,-a decision which said
that the conspirntors were guilty OF murder, even
though not single one beside be who fired rhe
saot concentrated any act OF Killing. Mr.. Mills
ursed thu that was the law Of this State. The
conspiracy could not be divided As unit it COM
preaenaed df5; the burglary, and second the re-
moyal Of the gooIs, and spoke for itself. On this
Loudly; that the men we're determined to protect
5s ms x S ts afs
as TIED saesnts jastiee had 5een 5es1
done to John Lamo, law Of our own State hav-
ing been given 10 the jury clearly and definitely,
corpoEaed in the Instructions and he ought not to
be tried again. but, in view Of the righteous ver-
dict should suffer the penalty provided by 1t.
COL VAN kRMAN,
In closing, called attention to the law instruction
OF the Court, saving that it contained two PROPOSE
tions: l.. iThat>f two or more persons con-
spired to do any unlawful act Whatever, and death
happens in the prosecution OF the common object
the partes though the Instruction didn't so statc),
then all were guilty." 2. ''Tne act Of one Of
them done in performance Of the origin al design
Is, IN consideration OF law, the act Of all, md he
who advises or encourages another to do an H.
legal act is responsible for all the natural and
probable consequences OF that act. =" The second
jury must have been led 10 suppose aud have m
oerstood that II it turned out and was true in
their opinion that deceased came to his death by
the act Of any one Of the persons engaged IN the
burglary. whether present or absent. then Lamb,
il one Of the burglars was guilty; in short that
soa' tbaa hsn0 rs%be S being OF the
was to convict him Of the homicide.
There distinction in the instruction between
been great deal Of discussion on the question Of |
the liahlhty of one FOR the acts Of others. While
he admitted that the law applicable to co-conspir-
ators, intending the perpetration OF unlawful acts,
HyartlV tina rDnlH
civil matters, yet In neither liable for
:loneu that act or some other which naturally and
probably involved the act in question. Il, for |
ns.aace Lamb bad ID planned :, adyiscd or
convicted. Or II he had planned, advised, or as
'ented 10 any other act which 10 ITS ordinary and
usual consequences involved the death Of man,
whether OF Race or any other, he was guilty; but,
be took part in plan which in its natural conse-
luences did not involve the death OF man. be was
lot guilty. There was no case IN the English Or
meriean books in which, applying the language
II tbs Court properly to the case before him, any
|udee had ever authorized jury 10 go beyond
pnR rot taa he N oer T. 10
hat he should have intended or assented the act
tself some other which in its natural and usual
,ouchfng upon the evidence in the case, be insist
d that man had mover before been convicted upon
uch as that produced against Lamb. The testl-
aony OF tho negro prostitute was utterly worth
Or would he say how much that Of man swear |
og with rope around his necS-brihed to swear ]
glinst the defendant By the love OF lfe--was
;otth.
Mr. Mills asked If there was anv proof going to
how that the negro woman was prostitute?
Col. Van ArmaQ said her appearance and the his
Dry Of her life showed it.
Dir. Mls-Taere IVES no evidence Of It ut ALL |
Col. Van Arman went on to say that there was |
o tangible evidence even to connect Lamb with !
le burglary. Freeman alone swore to il. He |
nd the Court would be as responsible for the
legal death Of Lamb, II he were hung, as the
ountarily omitted to do, involved ns deep guilt
. though be did the thing himself, II It were
ropg. He maintained thata more unjust and un- |
Imported verdict far a. respectable or credible
amb could not have been convicted OF any crime |
pom such testimony without an outrage on the ad
Illustration Of Justice.
The Court said be wonld examine the authosi-
es, and, a. tins was the last DAY Of the term, it
ecame important to decide the motion, which he
ould do ut half-past O'Clock.
Col. VIM Arman remarked that he could not Be
resent and ii the decision waa adverse to him, |
desired an abundance Of time to take the nec- |
sary steps to avail himself Of any supposed |
The Court said he would guard the interests OF
be Coioners client very carefully, is he did not
ant-any tnjnstice to he done.
When the Court Ecassembted
JUDGE WILLIAMS
i'd he had given the question the consideration {
ID come to conclusion. But before discusstn.
G law he desired to say a word in regard to the I
,jcction which had been made to the verdict as
aust the evidence. It was true that grea: deal
The testimony was Of that sort which should be
oked upon with snsplcion,-in part of't Sheeney Z
GORGE one Of the accompliccs in the burglary {
I'd in the murder,-H man who had become in
nous not only by this bnt BY other criminal acts;