Morning journal and courier., 1881-04-15
On Trial for Life.


 the heArguments-TheC Case Ready for the
 Jury.
 In the Chip" Smith murder trial yester- day morning, before Chief Justice Park, MT. T. J. Fox resumed his argument. He held that there was no proof that the pistol shot which killed Hayes did not come from Hayes own pistol; that it was contrary to reason to suppose that young Smith would have, as the State claimed, told his brother of an intent to be fe1on that Hayes would not have gone to arrest Smith if he had known, as claimed, that Smith had pistol If Hayes knew Smith had a revolver why did he ask him if he had one? The attorneys theory was that the chief of police was indiscreet and rash and that in the scufHe it was just as like as not Hayes own weapon which did the deed. The attorney was confident that the poor boy, as the prisoner was termed, did not do the shooting from the position and nature of the wound. Hayes told the cler- gyman to secure his pistol and keep it from the hands of men. Why? Because Hayes was conscious of carelessness and wanted Smith punished. Why did the officer punish Smith, apoor drunken boy, so cruelty over the head with the billy?
 The attorney then charged the jury with their duty and the duty of discriminating as to the nature and character of the offence. He held that it could not well be held by the jury that premeditated act was committed by this drunken boy who had been from probability of intent. Authorities were re- ferred to on this point. He held that the pistol shots from Smiths pistol were &C., counted for previous to the affray.
 Ex-Judge Blydenburgh followed Mr. Blydenburgh began by speaking of the prob- ing The law is such that if one party in ficts a wound which might be fatal, and an other party comes in and inficts another fatal wound, the first party cannot be held to have caused the death. In this case Dr. Blodgett does not deny that he probed the wound to the depth of three inches, and we have the evidence of Dr. Baldwin and Dr. Pinney that such probing would be dan gerous, and that they could not swear that Hayes would have died on the day he did had the probing not been done. There is no evidence to show that the probing was not done, and you cannot find that, beyond all reasonable doubt, the death of Daniel J. Hayes was caused by the shooting. Mr Blydenburgh cautioned the jury against yielding to this that public prejudice. Had the boy been killed in the scuffie instead of Hayes, Hayes would now instead of Smith be on trial Judge Blydenburgh entered at some length into the question of premedita- tion, holding that this was not of that description. Should the rash boast of a half drunken boy be held to mean premedi- tation It was 8 foolish remark, and should not weigh for reconciliation What did Hayes himself say of the boy before going to arrest him? He called him ''crazy loon." There is no evidence of 8 quarrel, or feud, or of bad blood between the two men. The claim of motive failed.
 The toctirnO11u ok fr show that the wound might have been made accidentally and by Hayes pistol. To show how easily Q witness might be mistaken MT. Blydenburgh said that Steele testified that while the men were struggling Smith snapped the pistol three times But only three car tridges show the marks of the hammer. Two of the shells are empty; one the pistol did not explode.
 In the afternoon Judge Blydenburgh re- stunned, further reviewing some of the evi- dence in the case to show how often testi- mony might be untrustworthy. He then, in very clear and forcible manner, charged upon the jury that it was not for them to as- sume that the shot came from Smiths pistol, for the three empty chambers in Smiths pistol were all accounted for as fired before the scufhe. MT. Blydenburgh closed with a fine peroration, speaking of the prisoner as almost friendless, appealing for impartiality and just review of the facts.
 State Attorney Doolittle closed with one of his able statements, defining his call to see that justice was done to the murdered man and reviewing the evidence in the case. The jury must not lose the thought that the law protects the. police officer in the discharge of his duty, that the protecting @gis of the law is specially thrown around him. Hayes was acting in the discharge of his duty, his sworn duty. He was to protect the peace. The accused was violating the peace. It was the officers duty to arrest him. The Stats's-At- I torney reviewed the evidence in the case as tending to support the charge in the fndict- ment, and as showing that death was the re- suit of pistol shot fired by Smith at the officer of the law in the discharge of his duty. He at times eloquently re- viewed the claims of the defense, taking their allegations and replying to them. He closed with a powerful summing up. The jury were then excused until Monday afternoon at o'clock, when the case will be given to them.
 The court room was crowded both morn ing and afternoon, many people from Derby and this city being present. The accused manifested very little emotion, sitting pas sively and quietly, but seeming at times ab- sorbed in thought.