Morning journal and courier., 1880-02-05
LOCAL NEWS.
tF.r other Local News see Second pae ell
The smith Murder Trial.

The Smith Murder Trial.
 Arguments Of Counsel on 10th Sides
 The Judges Charge-Ehe Jury After
 Being Out Four Hours Are Excused
 for the Night
 The court opened yesterday morning at 10 o'clock, when Mir. Pickett began his argu- ment, the opening argument for the State. He went over the legal consideration involveds reading authorities to show what constitutes murder, and coming to the facts, said: The State claims that this killing was murder in the first degree, because all the elements that constitute this high crime are there, the ex- pressed malice-"Tn cut his heart out''-he went there and did what he said he'd do. Therefore, gentlemen, though there are four possible yerdicts in this case the State, to do it's duty, must claim murder in the first de- gree.
 Mir. Pickett then reviewed the testimony Some time before the murder the prisoner told Detective Reilly something terrible would happen; and after the killing Smith said, "Didn't I tell you something terrible would happen2" To Losing Alexander, Green Richardson and others Smith made threats that he would kill Pierce. The witness Mul- len tells you he prepared for the deed by get ting his knife sharpened. The jealousy of the accused was aroused; but there is not 8 particle of evidence that there was any ground for his jealousy. If Pierce courted 8 woman who was not Smiths wife, but whom he had cast of, he had @ right to do 80. Gen. tlemen, you have the threats, the prepara- tions to carry them out and the frame of mind he was in to carry out his threats. He went to the house where Pierce was, with an open knife in his hand, and did what he threatened he'd do. The malice aforethought expressed in words was then and there wrought out, and you have here all the ele- ments of murder in the first degree. Gentle men, there was deliberated, premeditated killing that makes it murder in the first degree if anything. The attorney then ar gued that Smith provoked the assault, and had his knife open and in his hand for mur- der and denied the claim that Smith acted in self-defense. Pierce sat in that room un- armed. He had no knife. He hadn't his coat or vest on. He certainly had no knife, and he certainly never cut Smith. Whatever dis position Pierce had manifested, he was not ready then; he was unarmed. If he had 8 knife, would he have acted as he did2 Would he have reached down for the stone in the hall ? Are the insignificant cuts on Smiths hand any indication that Pierce had knife 1? No, they were made by the knife he himself had, SO far as his clothes are concerned, while the small hand cuts came from the glass he ran his hand against and broke. If Pierce had knife, he was able to use it, and un- doubtedly, being stronger man, he would have cut Smith to death instead of being him. self killed. There is no doubt Smith went lIzl
 The attorney further held that Smiths claims must be looked at with suspicion. How could he see a knife in the dark in Pierce's hand, as he claimed, especially when in the heat of excitement? If Pierce had had knife Smith would have got cut, most un- doubtedIy, with Smith being the assailant MT. Pickett read from the law bearing on selfdefense. The accused began the bloody business. There was bare-handed conflict with an armed man, and the armed man cut the bare handed man to death. That's the whole matter in brief. In closing, MT. Pickett charged the jury to do justice alike to the dead and the living.
 Mr. HOtchkis.' Argument.
 In opening for the defense Mr. Hotchkiss said that this was the first time he ever stood before jury to intercede between the State of Connecticut and prisoner charged with the highest crime known to the law. He hoped that he might always be called to ap- pear in cases where the right was so strongly with the prisoner in this case. A man who had conducted himself with that restraint that the prisoner had, in view of the fact that his wife had been taken from him and his home broken up, certainly ought to be be- GeVed in the story of the affair he told, and if his story was believed then the accused ought to walk out of the court free man.
 The accused, hearing that his child had been beaten, went to that house to inquire into the matter, was assaulted and badly cut, and then in self-defense he cut Pierce. He was maddensd at the assault that had been committed On him, and it was after getting out of the house he said, as Mrs. Wilson tes- tifed: May be I've cut that man and 1 guess I'll go back now and finish the job." The burden of proof is upon the State. They must show the accused did not do it in self defense, rather than that he must show that he did do it in self-defense. MT. Hotchkiss read law to support his position. In this case the prosecution proved that the accused did this cutting that he had made threats, and then left it to the defense to prove that the cutting was done in self-defense. The speak CT found fault with the way the State had pre- sented it's case; not putting in the bulk of it's testimony until near the last. It was the de- fense, the speaker claimed, that had been try ing to throw light upon this transaction.
 The court reminded the attorney that the testimony for the prosecution, however it came in, was before the jury, and suggested that MT. Hotchkiss confine himself to the ar gunent rather than to making complaints.
 The story of the accused was next taken up The speaker claimed the alleged marriage of Smith, as shown to be fact, that the accused was always kind man to his family, and was well known and liked by the community as 'tWhistling Jake," a merry, humorous man, kind and not easily aroused except by great aggravation such as touched the feel ings and heart and honor. Smarting under injuries, and having Pierce's threats that he w0uld kill him if he nona fo ha house, Smith went there to see his wife and children. He was an injured, wronged man, and knowing Pierce felt that there would be war when they met. Smith never sought Pierce, but Pierce had often threatened Jake. The whole story of Jake was cited as showing that he did not begin the assault, and it was held that Smith acted in self defense. The accused was of psaceable character as shown, and his wife's evidence against him was held to be tinctured with ill will. The alleged marriage was valid under New York laws with cohabitation and avowal. The testimony of the mother in-law was reviewed as unworthy of credence.
 Mrs DOOlltIle's Argument.
 Mir. Doolittle held that the issue before the jury was the question as to murder in the 1st degree. The law was no respecter of per sons. He retorted upon MT. Hotchkiss, say ing that he, Mr. Doolittle, was not on trial, and held that the State had shown all that could be asked for to substantiate the claim of the grand jury's indictment. It may be that it rests with the government to prove the accused guilty of murder in the first degree, but to prove him guilty in the second degree the burden of proof certainly rests with the defense. The State can't prove a negative ; they have proved the killing. What right had he to take the law in his own hands He must show his right, if he had any.
 What are the facts in this case? The &C., cused seduced this young woman of sixteen or | seventeen and took her away from her mother. If he wanted to marry her why didn't he mar ry her in Connecticut :? She admits they l passed as man and wife, and that she called | him her husband, but they were never mar ried, despite his statement to the contrary. | He can't tell the minister who married them, l where he lived or anything about him. The | story of that marriage is incredible. The second step is when he had used this | woman till she had ceased to be attractive. | Another attachment appeared and he cast of | his so-called wife. He thought it his priv | ilege to associate with as many female friends | as he saw fit, but she could look upon no oth- |