Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1884-12-24

ty. Don't forget that crime has beeh per-
petrated, and that Lishness, in the prime of
life, and in all the strength of his young
mhnhood, was struck down BY the hand of an
assassin. Do not forget that one man was
equal to tie other. We are here to deter
mine and investigate what the crime is.
have no spirit of revenge in this matter, and
all that ask is Justice.
NJ. Haines held that Burns was making
disturbance which gave the officers reason
able cause for proceeding to arrest him
and that they used all due caution. Excep-
tons were taken 10 the attempt TO throw re-
Elections on Mrs. Randalrs testimony. The
fact that Mrs. Randall and Mr.. Baker testi-
fed so emphatically in regard to the use of
the word Warren" by the prisoner. was
cited:
Mr.. Haines stated that it was one of the
Fundamental principles of law that the kill
ing of an officer is murder, and that the
question of murder in the first degree might
enter into the question. The counsel did not
give much weight TO what Burns told Mr..
Spear in regard TO fixing the officer who ar
rested him. He d<precaied the words of
the defending counsel in speaking of the
pistol as toy and held that the case of
too grave a nature for such idle talk. Ii
figures in this case, he said. as instrument of
death, and whether rusty or otherwise caused
the death of Mr.. Lishness. II was held that
from the nature of the wound, Burns must
have stood in front of his victim instead of
at the bedside.
The question of drunkenness of course
has its weight in this case. Rum has repeat
eddy been factor in crime. The law says
that drunkenness shall not palliate or excuse
crime. In certain eases when the slayer is
responsible on account of inebriation, his
crime is made murder in the second degree.
As to Burns stupor. His saucy reply to
Mrs Randall showed that he knew what
he was doing. Does not this reply show that
he continued right on making disturbance?
believe Burns relapsed into a stupor after
the shooting, as a man of his temperament
naturally would. After the evidence is SIM
mered down, all the complaint the old man
Burns makes is that against Bruce. DO you
believe that Bruce choked Burns when he
said he didn't? Ii is said that these officers
had some ambition in this matter. Gentle
men, if you were on the police force of Au-
gusta, and one of your number should be
shot down by an assassin, wouldn't you have
an ambition to convict him of his crime.
If there is one person who knows all the
facts in this case. it is Mrs. Burns, and ask
right here why the counsel for the defence
did not put her on the stand? She could
have corroborated all the statements of the
accused. It's desperate case when wit
ness knowing TO everything that occurred
cannot be put upon the stand should have
used her for the prosecution, but the tempta-
ton on her part to testify falsely. when the
life of one whom she loved so well was in
jeopardy, was SO great that il would not have
been wisdom.
The attorney secuted the idea that boys
sauced Burns or threatened To drag him out
of his house. He asserted that the old man
Burns contradicted himself IN testifsing. You
saw. he said, how he purchased tobacco after
| had traced all his money into his pocket
book in his pants on the chair. In closing,
the attorney eloquently called the attention
of the jury to the duties and resp lnsibiities
devolving upon those administering the Grim
inal laws in this country
Mr.. Haines closed at o'clock when Judge
Whitehouse gave his instructions to the jury
Extract from the Judges Charge.
Drunkenness has alwas been regarded by
the common law as in certain sense Grim
inal, and our statutes expressly declare it to
be criminal offence under stated circum-
stances and conditions. Aud it is an old and
familiar rule of law that voluntary intoxica-
ton is no excuse for criminal act commit
ted under its influence. Considerations of
public policy and reasonable protection for
society have firmly established this doctrine
that drunkenness is no excuse for crime when
the offence consists in doing a criminal act,
without regards to deliberation or intention.
But when the nature and essence of a crime
are made, by law, to depend upon the pecu-
liar state and conditions of the criminals
mind at the time, with reference to the act
done, then drunkenness which actually affects
| t,oho kaNn nd midi 49,, ,trN1 L
matter for the consideration of the jury for
the purpose of determining what that state
or condition of mind was, and for that pur-
pose only. 1t would not justify or excuse
the criminal or relieve him from punishment
for the act itself.
Now you have understood from the expla-
nation of the 'malice aforethought" in this
statute, that if person wilfully and volun-
tarly discharges loaded revolver at another
at close range and thereby causes his death,
without lawful excuse, the law would imply
such malice as would make that act murder
in the absence of any evidence to the con-
trary and drunkenness would not render it
any less than murder. Drunkenness would
be no excuse for the murderous act. 1t
would MOI relieve him from punishment for
the crime. But the statute says that when
this act is committed in a certain state and
CONDITIONS OF the NINA, II snail DE MURDER IN
the first degree; if committed with sedate
mind, and specifice intention to take human
life, formed with some deliberaton,
it shall be murder in the first degree.
Hence intoxication, or any other
fact like deep resentment and violent pas
sion caused by great wrong and just and
adequate provocation, which tends to
prove that the prisoner was not in cond-
ton of mind to be capable of reflector and
elaboration, is always complete evidence for
the jury, and intoxication is Admirable in
such cases, not as an excuse for crime, not
as a mitigation ofpunishment, but so aid in
ascertaining what degree of crime his act
amounts to; not to excuse the crime, but to
find out what the crime is which he has COM
mitted. This doctrine is as old and sound as
any principle of the common las. 1t has
been applied in England, in our own State
in years past, and in every State in our
Union. 1t has recently been reaffirmed by
the supreme court of the United States, the
highest tribunal in America, in an opinion by
Judge Gray, of Massachusetts,, in which he
saws:
AT common law, indeed, as a general
ruls. voluntary intoxicstion affords no ex-
cuse, justification or extenuation eff a crime
committed under its influence. But when
a statute establishing different degrees Of
murder requires deliberate generalization in
order to constitute murder in the first degree,
the question whether the accused Is in such
a cnpIifipn Of mind hv roason Of ipfuvicaftau