Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1882-01-09
TRIAL OF TIE ASSASSIN.
Law Points Argued BY Counsel
Gulieau Calls Seoviile . Fool
and Repudiates His Theory Of
the Defense.

and Regulates His Theory OF
the Defense.
WASHINGTON. January 8. - In the
Guiteau case Saturday morning. Davidge
opened the arguments upon the legal
points and was followed with the closest
attention. The jury were told BY the
Judge that they might be excused for
the day. but oil preferred to remain and
listen to the arguments.
Guitsau pretended to read . letter.
but in reality followed Davidss with the
! closest attention. The few interrup-
tons he made were unnotieed by
sci, save when Guitsau called out: ~
didn't know the difference between right
and wrong. I had no choice. II ! had
I would net have done It," To this
Davidgs said: 1--WE will come to that
BY and by"
The first sensation Of the day was
caused by the reading Of Judge Davidgs
Of o New York charge to the jury In
the Coleman murder case. Judge Por-
ter relieved Dsvidge and read from
newspaper slips.
Scoville, with some impatisnes, objso-
ted to any more such dramatic efforts on
the part OF Porter. intended for effect
upon the jury, and insisted that he
(Porter) might as we'll make Q stump
speech to the jury; that he (Porter)
49, A.. IA Ia ~ kaav;p0 upnn thu
case.
"Oi course he knows IT," Guiteau
shouted, land more than that the jury
decided the case directly against the
charge Of the Court"
Judge Porter repelled the intimation.
and insisted that this farce which has so
long been enacted by counsel for the de-
Tense. must now stop. II not rebuked
by the Court II would be by others.
Judge Cox ended the dispute by say
ing that the matter read was undoubt-
eddy authority. and the applicability to
this case could be commented upon by
counsel OF the proper time.
As Dsvidgs resumed, Guiteau again
shouted: 81 want to get this thing
right before the jury. Every n knows
all about that Coleman case. The jury
gave q verdict against that charge, and
this prosecution know 1t WE'LL"
The effect was electrical when Da-
vidge, 10 the most deliberate and earnest
manner, said: "Your honor. this man,
for three weeks has been held up to Us
as On imbecile, and now listen to him.
Ho not only knows the difference DO.
tween right aud wrong. but understands
| fully the law Of the case"
Guiteau - Transitory msnia; that's
my case; I don't pretend that I'm in
sane now. I've got Of good o head a.
you or Porter either. Scoville 10 . fool.
I repudia,e him aud his whole theory OF
the defense; all / want Ia two hours DO.
fore that jury. and I can settle this
thing all right.
The scene was q lively one for q few
moments.
Judge Cox raped for order, and soon
Gui.eau subsidized, and Davidge contin-
ued without further interruption to tho
end OF his argument.
The prisoner assured counsel that hs
would not ask to take any part In tho
legal arguments today. but should in
sist on making any comments he might
deem necessary to set them right on
| either side as the arguments progressed.
Davidgs read and then elaborated the
prayers OF the government, which ask
the Judge to instruct the jury that II the
| prisoner knew at the time OF the shoot
ing the difference between right and
wrong, he was at that time sane and 70.
sponsibls. Dayidge. with the prayer In
his hand, said, in low but distinct tones
aud measured language. 'Aud. that they
consisted, first, OF the above definition
OF insanity. second. Of the declaration
that IL the prisoner possessed the ability
to 40 distinguish between right aud
wrong, no irresistible passion or i'm.
| pulse, no uncomfortable desire or moral
d~.pravity would excuse his act; third,
. declaration that q standard Of insanity
must be that Of law; fourth, that no de-
fusion Of an ability to distinguish be-
tween right and wrong being present
would excuse the prisoner. Davidse
thought tho prayers OF the defense bear
ing on the points contained In the pray
ers Of the prosecution ought not to be
entertained for q moment. He said
that the law drew the line Of response.
bility for crime somewhere. 1t had not
been fully defined until the Judges OF
Eugland. in l843. at the request Of the
| House Of Lords, laid down the legal
rule defining responsibility. This ruls
was the good old right and wrong test
the rule Of common sense There were,
he said, infinite degrees Of intelligence.
Think OF the illustrious victim Of this
prisoner on the one hand, and this as.
sassin on the other. The law drew no
line between the lowest degreeo Of intel.
liRence on the one hand and the highest
ON the other. In respect OF responsibility
for crime. This prisoner had q keen
portrait as an imbecile until he went
upon the stapd and tore himself into
shreds and atoms. A man might be pc.
c%nliar, and might be even partially In
sane; but II he arose to Q point OF In.
t~elligence which enabled him to know
the difference between right and wrong.
and that what he was doing was wrong,
then he was responsible for the wrong.
Davidee stated that the questions on
the subject Of insanity which had been
submitted to the Judges Of England had
q direct bearing On this case. The tirst
question was as to the responsibility Of
the person for IN act when ut the time
Of committing the act he knew he was
acting contrary to law, but did the act
complained OF under the '%influsncs Of
an insane delusion OF rsdressing o sup.
posed injury or Of producing some sup.
posed public benefit" The answer OF
oil the Judges. except Chief Justice
Moll. was that they were Of opinion,
Notwithstanding that the party accused
did the act with tho view and under the
insane delusion OF rsdres,ipg soms sup.