Daily Republican. [volume] ([Wilmington, Del.]) 1874-1890, 1884-11-12
IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
JORMsOu CONVaCTED ruv
JU1Y OUT NOT QUITE
TWO HOURS,

Two HOURS.
Court resumed proceedings At 2.30
o'clock Tuesday afternoon, with Ohiei
Justice Comegys and Associated
Judges Woottep. Houston and Whitelry
on tho bench. As soon 40 tho Jury
was brought In and their names called
Attorney General Gray opened his af.
gument TO the jury.
He aaid It WAS not necessary for him
to recount the evidence that had been
presented 10 the jury, and it only re.
mained tor him to perfoi m a great, but
painful duty. and tit were possible
for him 70 do 10, he would much rather
stand before them and advocate tho
prisoners cause. iban to take the part
which his duty to the community and
70 the man who now sleeps In his grave
Obliged him TO perform. Put no mat
ter how much he or the jury might
sympathizo with the prisoner In the
unfortunate otition In which be In
placed the jury as well ~ himself had
o great duty 70 perform, and 1t behoovcd
them and him as men, TO do II fearless.
ly witbt ut regard TO their feelings.
He then proceeded 10 define murder,
and reviewed Mr.. Higgins abatement
that nothing had been shown to prove
that the prisoner struck the fatal blows,
and that even II be did, the crime did
aot rise beyond that of granddaughter
He believed that the jury had given
the greatest attention 70 the evidence,
and he had no doubt but IL had the same
effect upon them that II had upon him
When crime has been com mitted, all
honest men are ready to hunt the
criminal cown and bring him to the
bar OF justice, but as soon IN he 10 con.
fronted with twelve men, whore duty Il
10 70 determine his guilt or innocence,
all sympathy for his victim ceasee, and
no efiort is left undone to clear him Of
tno Jaw, He knew the responsibility
tbas rested upon him Rs the public
pros. cutor, and he knew that IN great
measure the enforcement Of the law
depended upon the States Attorney,
aRd he felt It his duty TO bring all tbs
facts of a case before jury, and In
struct them In the law, but he never
threw out drag net, as charged by
one Of the attorneys for the defense, to
bring in evidence against any prisoner.
The evidence given by each of the
witne.s ses was carefully reviewed, and
the attention Of the jury called to the
fact that those fer the defense agreed,
in every important Part, with that OF.
fered Icy the State, and said he did not
zee that the jury could have the slight.
est doubt that everything hal pened just
as they had stated. Ii this evidence
was not believed, then human testi.
mony must go for namght,
This Ia not case OF circuma:aniial
fau iynnuu nj N tho fu ata nf ha 70 an
even TO the blows which fell upon the
devoted head Of the victim of this
prisoner at ,be bar had been faithfully
detailed ly ,hote wbo had seen and
heard them. T.ese witnesses bad told
their stories With the full knowledge
of the sane tity aid responsibility Of an
oath resting upon them, and NO man
could justly doubt their truthfulness.
There III no mystery about this case,
and IL was not for him, or the jury, to
pry into the motives hidden Ia the
prieoner's heart, ard which prompted
him TO commit this crime.
A jury has nothing to do with the
motives that aetuate crime. and IL 1t
was established that before q m an could
be convicted, some motive must be
shown that would ac:uate him to COM
init CT ime, no one would be safe, ~
all man, who wished TO do great
bodily harm to another, or slay him,
would have TO do, would be 10 hide in
mis- own breast the fact that be had
any thing against his victim.
1t was not for him or the jury TO stop
and inquire what grudge the prisoner
b ad in bis heart against Warrington,
neither was IL for them TO inquire
wether be in tended TO kill his victim,
for the evidence clearly showed that as
soon as he saw Warrington, he left his
company and followed him back TO the
church, and that he had armed himself
with paling torn from the fence, with
the intention of doing him some great
bodily harm. 1t would not do to say
that no did not intend to kill him, that
his blows had an effect which he did not
intend, for If such principle were once
every safeguard would be
from society.
The testimony 10 clear and uncOn.
tradicted, and the even. banded justice
that the law provides for all, rich and
poor, black or white, demands YER
dict Of guilty of murder in The first
degree. There are no extenuating cir.
in this case, and the evi.
dencs as given by all the witnesses who
saw this cruel deed leaves no room for
doubt.
Mr.. Gray concluded his mastery
argument at 3. 40 o'clock, and the jury
were Immediately charged by Judge
who, aftet detailing the cir
attending the killing of
Warrington, said that while nothing
had been shown to create the suppO.
sition that the prisoner had any motive
for the crime, he did not think that
should operate to change the degree Of
murder. If the jury find that Lewis
johnson did on that night arm himself
with pick ct, or paling ,and go up to JAS.
Warrington and inflict blows on him
which resulted in his death, they must
find him guilty of murder,
ae said that In this case it would be
necessary for him to explain 10 them
the difference between the two degrees
of murder, which he then clearly de-
fined, and also that Of manslaughter.
1t was not contendsd III this case that
there was any lying in wait, nor was
it shown that there was any premedi.
tated malice. 1t had been commended
by the defense that even If the prisoner
committed this crime he did not use .
deadly weapon, but anything was
deadly weapon that might fracture
mans skull, or cause death in any way.
Many footpads and burglars use sand
bags to stun their victims, yet II death
should ensue from the use OF eapon
OF this kind, the one infiicting the blow
would be guilty of murder. A blow on
the head with a cudgel might result in
death and be murder, whereas lne same
blow on the leg would only be assault
and battery.
He then considered the law bearing