The daily gazette., 1879-11-24
FIRST EDITION.
OYER AND TERMINER
TWO CAPITAL CASES CON
CL UDED.
END OF THE BROWN AND BRAN
NON TRIALS.

BY WHICH THE MIsCREANT PLEDs
GUILTY TO A MODIFIED CHARGE,
AND GETS TEN YEARS.
Specially Reported for the GAZETTE.
New CASTLE, Nov. 22.-In the case
OF btats vs.. William Brown to-day, Mr..
Bird, counsel for the detens', had clos
ed his argument when the GAzETTE's
report concluded.
After addressing the court upon poiots
OF law, Mr.. Gray, for State, made the
closing argument to the Jury. He took
up the evidence addressed by the defense
and said that the state would be willing
" cancel the evidence of all witnesses,
and rest upon the facts shown by those
Of the other side. lie reviewed the tes-
limony Al great length and presented the
case III all its details, answering every
argument made by Mr.. Bird. lie clos
ed with ali eloquent and earnest appeal
10 the jury TO act cons cientiouslt, and
give verdict that would make the pris.
oner an example, In order to teach boys
that they must fight with less deadly
weapons, aud to protect the cuildrsh Of
the whole community.
MIR. Gray concluded at 1.40 o'clock and
court took recess ~ 3 o'clock.
Court reasscmbled at 3 o'clock and
the Chief Justice charged the jury in
the case Of State vs.. William Brown.
The court in commencing used nearly
the following words !: "GENTLEMEN OF
THE JUKY-The prisoner at the bar,
William Brown, has been indicted by
the Grand Jury at the present term VI
court for the crime of murder in the first
degree. by the law of this State a party
indicted Of murder in the first degree
may be convicted by the jury, il they
ond degree, or of manslaughter, as they
choose or as their consciences may die
tate during the trial. The Deputy At
torney General looking al the different
lights Of the case in his address to you
last evening, concluded TO ask for YER
dict of manslaughter only. AId now
gentlemen, IL is simply for you to deter
mine whether the prisoner Is guilty OF
manslaughter, or not of any crime at
ALL"
The court went on to observe that in
this case it was certain that homicid
had been committed, and that the facts
surrounding the case left 10 doubt but
that the club, when the fatal blow was
inflicted, was in the hands Of William
Brown. All homicides were divided by
law into two classes and not
malicious. Malicious homicides are
murders, and, therefore, are felonious;
homicides not malicious, and, hence, non
felonIous are those committed in self
defense or by justification of the law.
The Deputy Attorney General, in open
lug he case, had given correct views ofthe
different kinds of homicides, which con-
sisted of justifiable, excusable, fslonious
but not malicious, and malicious homi-
cides. Justifiable homicides are homi-
cides committed by the authority Of the
law. For instance, when Sheriff exc
cutes a prisoner who has been condemn
ed to death under the law 80 when all
officer of the law armed with the proper
authority or the proper writ or warrant,
cannot apprehend felon in any other
way than taking his life, he has right
to do ii, and is justified In taking The
body of the prisoner in that way, be-
cause the law instructs him to do so.
Excus ,ble homie. .desare those committed
in self defense, such as committed in de-
tense of ones person, family or property
Homicides punishable by the law are
c ,mmit, Q / in neither of these ways but
are committed in pursuit of some wrong
full act the two just cited are not felon-
ious.
In the consideration of this case the
Court said that the jury was concerned
with the two latter kinds Of homicides
already mentioned-felonious but moi
malicious, and malicious homicides
The learned counsel for the defendant
in his able defense, had relied on two
grounds. The first was that the accuse G
had not sufficient capacity to understand
that he was doing an unlawful act; thai
his mind was not Of sufficient capacity
| to ascertain whether the killing Of Bat
son was right OF wrong. In this he re-
| lied upon the presumption Of the law
| that between the years Of seven anG
fourteen a person is incapable OF The
commission of any crime. One o.. The
points made was that the State had no
adduced sufficient evidence to show tha
the prisoner was capable. The Chic
Justice proceeded to speak about crimi
nal responsibilities. 1t is the presump
ton of the law that up to the age o
seven years person is incapable to com
init crime. No matter how iDtelligen
a child may be the law will not allow
that child to be prosecuted on the Grount
that it cannot be capable Of discriminat
ing between right and wrong. 1t Il
proven that child under that age can
not tell between right and wrong; tin
law therefore comes in, and during thu
period between birth and the age o
seven years the child is protected. 81
the law presumes that after the age o
fourteen years a child is capable OF dis
cerning between right and wrong. l
must be shown by the defense, in a cas-
whore the age is plea, if the accused
has attained fourteen years, that he wa
incapable of knowing at the commission
of a crime that his act was wrong; II
other words, that the mind of the aC
cused was weak or affected by insanity
Between the years of seven and -four
teen the law holds thai child is capa
BILE Of committing crime, but also hold
that proof can be made as to his meiita
strength.
The defense holds that the prisoner i
this case Is twelve years and TIRE
months old, and that no pro # has bee
made that he could have understood tina
his act was wrong. If his position
right, and the jury were satisfied III thel
minds that this point was sustained, ,the
there is really no crime for which Tn
prisoner could be held responsible. Bu
ON the other hand. the Stae insists ths
he has removed that presumption, an
| ,hat ha hoo shown that the prisoner