Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-11-07
Accidental Murder.
From the New York Times.

1s there such thing as accidental murder?
From the SOteldO trial it would seem that there
may be. That case is certainly mysterious
Barton had published in the National Repubi-
can an article rejecting on SoteIdO the elder
He, accompanied by younger brother. visited
Barton, at the Office OF the paper. With what
precise purpose they went was one of the ques-
lions on the trial. Even what took place is
involved in mystery; that there was an afray
and that the elder SoteldO was killed by pis-
tOl-shOt, seem the only facts undisputed. No
fourth person witnessed the shooting. Barton
admitted drawing a pistol upon the elder
Soteldo. but swore positively that he could not
discharge t-e.ther because he could not get it
cooked or from some defect it would not go off
and that the deceased was killed by bali
from the younger Suteldo's weapon, aimed at
Barton Upon this version of the facts the
younger S0teldO was put on trial for murder.
He admitted shooting at Bart0n-indeed tie hit
and wounded him-but swore that he did this TO
save his brothers lie. and not until after his
brother had fallen to the floor wounded by
pistOl-shOt from Barton The jury either be-
cause they believed that the fatal ball sped from
BartOns pistol. or because they considered the
question involved in doubt. acquitted the
younger brother This leaves him amenable to
trial on a charge of shooting at Barton, and
Barton open to al accu alton of murder, if
grand Jury think that his was the pistol which
inflicted tn. fatal wound and that there is not
ground to claim Sc f-de.,'nSe
Many readers will be surprised at reading that
if the death of the elder brother were clearly
attributable to the younger's bullet. the latter
could tie condemned ior murder. when he had
not the slightest inteut to Kill or even iniure
the elder. but, on the contrary. was there to
succOr and protect him For the very essence
of murder is al inteatiOn TO Kill Yet good
many cases have occurred in ich the jud res
have felt it necessary to inpute an intention
q rh hn .shn nt or Il nt liz
tain it. In England. years aLO. a soldier posted
"a sentry had grudre against a fellow soldier
named Mahoney lie supposed that Mahoney
hal been posted IA sentry on the post next to
his own, and, III this belief. discharged his gun
at the man who was keeping guard ON the other
post. meaning to Kill MahOney. In fact, how
ever. MahoIey was not on guard that night; a
man named Taylor was In his place. and Taylor
,e'ved the bail intended for MahOney. The
judges sad that the mistake as to name made
no difference in the crime: the sentry was
guilty. for he "ntended to kill the man at
whom he shot"
In Kentucky. during war times. a quarrel
arose over an election in Il church. and waXed
SD violent that one Of the contestants brought
MS gun upon the scene. meaning to Kill some OF
tn" adverse party; but 1t was discharged acct
dentaiiy before he was ready and killed one of
hsoan friends. The jua. es said that as the
gun went OF without his meaning to discharge
1t. he was not guilty, but that if he had fired
Intentionally. the cirCunStanc. that he hit
trend instead OF a foe would not have saved
him. There VAS al instance in Cincinnati about
dozen years arc; two police officers arrested q
rondy and We're - running him in." when one
OF his comrades came up, demanded that they
should release his friend and fired pistol. but
instead OF hitting either officer he wounded his
frend. The judges said that as the three men
were Standing together SO near tlat firing at
one endangered ali. the accused must he deemed
to have intended tn hit either. as might happen.
Similar decisions were made IN Maine and in
Delaware about three years aro in the Della
ware case the judges sad that shooting per
son cannot he excused as accidental unless the
conduct of the a.sgfessOr ~ innocent and lawful
as w.iole. Taking aim at man is criminal
and iAhe 0OuGes and i'll consequence person
standing behind hitn il mir Instead the offender
is Just as guilty as if he had hit the man in
tended.
4 curious case Of accidental poisoning is on
record. in which an EngiiShwoman desired to
be rid Of her child which she had '.farued out -
and tor t;ls purpose gave the nurse some lauda-
| tum disguised as an Innocent medicine, which
she told the nurse to give TO the baby. The
narae neglected to follow the direction but left
the bottle On the n.anteipiece not knowing that
the contents were poisonous. There were other
children in the house. and one Of these, only
five year old In the nurses absence got the
medicine from the shelf and gave the baby some.
The Daby drank it and died When the mother
was tried for murder. her lawyer argued that
she had nothing to do with the acts of the little
five year old. But the c0uit declared her Just as
responsible for the child giving the medicine
which she had prepared to be given as she
would have been had the nurse given it as she
requested.