Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1884-01-12
BY GRAPH.
MAINR DISPATCHES.
THE RICHMOND MURDER CASE.
Judge Libbey's Charye-The Jury Ren.
der q Verdict Of Aansiaughter Alter
Being Dat seves Hoars-Seven
Ballots Taken.
Bath, Jan. II.

BArH, Jan. IL.
In the Richmond case Friday Judge Libbey
occupied an hour and half in his charge.
He reminded the jury that the case vas Of
great importance and that the evidence must
be carefully considered. The Law, he said,
Is respected when il Is fearlessly, justly and
promptly enforced by the court and jury,
The crime charged vas murder. The legal
presumption followed all through the case
that the prisoners we're innocent The bur-
den Of proof is upon the State to support,
proof satisfactory tn carry CONVICTION to your
mind 90 that when you declare the guilt you
will merely declare the truth Of the evidence
submitted to you. lie then stated that mnr-
der is the unlawful killing Of human being
With malice aforethought, either express or
implied In this case death was either acci-
dental or caused by some other persons than
the prisoners, and that the State having this
proof to sustain has not proved it with sufi-
Gent strength. You, gentlemen, have the
evidence in this case and must determine.
1t is your duty to ascertain facts and apply
them to the rules Of Law. You have affirma-
tive facts from one of the witnesses that
Denny was knocked down. Now the first
inquiry for you was there violence. You
have the testimony of Mrs. Denny, she saw
HOPKINS knock her husband down and kick
him that of Plummer that he saw some per-
son strike and knock him down. His evil
dence is for you to decide, and it weight, and
whether he spoke either from favor towards
have the evidence of the doctors; the evil
dence tending to show the marks on the face
from the physician and coroner. II is
claimed the heel of Hopkins boot conceded
exactly with marks on Denny's face. Wit
nesses appeared disinterested. The evidence
is for you and you must determine, how much
weight it carries, as to whether it was COM
mitted by respondent. Can the wounds on
the person of the Indian be accounted for in
any other way than by violence? Who else
besides the prisoners at the bar had motives
for doing the deed? You must consider
Turner admits he without permission en-
tered the room occupied by Denny for an un-
lawful purpose. armed with an unlawful
weapon. He tells you of the resistance he
met with and that to overcome it he struck
old Joe. He then took hold of Mrs. Denny
by the shoulder. How much light does that
show rs to unlawful motive, is the great
question as to who caused the death of Denny.
What purpose did he go upstairs for? He
tells you to inflict violence on the young In
dian. What light is there here as to his
cri minsl purpose and motive.
Was it murder on the part Of either Of the
prisoners or both? Then was there malice,
not in the popular but legal sense, not pre-
meditated hatred or revenge, but such kill
ing as is accompanied by circumstances show
ing a heart perversely wicked. 1t is legal
malice where a man committing q felony
kills man against whom he has no malice
the unlaw full character of his intent to CON-
NIT felony characterizes all his acts while
committing or attempting to commit that fell
ony. II the intent to commit felony is q
forethought, that is sufficient to cause NAL
ice.
II they were working together with a com.
mon purpose to commit an assault it is moi
material who killed the old Indan-they are
both equally guilty in the Law, the one who
was absent as well as the one present. II
the prisoners combined to commit an assault,
upon Mrs. Denny, and used this force in re-
polling resistance, both are guilty of murder
in the first degree. Any murder connected
with the crime of rape is in the first degree
II homicide was committed while attempt.
ing the crime of rape, it was murder in the
first degree. This drives us to consider
whether they were acting with a common
purpose. Now a common purpose or con-
spiracy is not generally made before wit
nesses. and it must be inferred by acts of the
parties and surrounding circumstances Did
Hopkins know of Turner's design when he
entered that room? Was Hopkins in the
other room as stated by Mrs. Denny2 Had
he purpose or design to aid and abet Turner
osA Nv eAtAN uoNh Ntu JUG Nhcu Hc iutcT-
fereds
You must determine whether they were
acting with a common purpose or design.
Ii is we'll to consider for what purpose they
went to that house. Were either of the
prisoners attempting the crime of rape' II
either was not, then that element in the
cause dies. Did they commit the crime Of
adultery? If so and homicide resulted then
here Is murder in the second degree. Hop
kins and Turner both testify to marriage
II there was no adultery proved il comes
down to manslaughter. Voluntary intoxca-
ton does not psllis,e the offence.
The case at 1913 went to the jury.
The jury, after being out seven hours, rem
dered verdict of manslaughter against both
respondents. The verdict gives general sat-
isfsction. The hopes of both we're buoyant
for acqsittal. Hopkins broke down at the
prospect of ten years in prison. On the first
ballot the jury stood seven for granddaughter
Eve for murder in the second degree. There
vas seven ballots. The idea of rape vas dis
caried. Judge Libby viii probably sentence
the prisoners in the morning.
One feature of Libbey's charge was the re-