The Portland daily press., 1885-02-06

under the immediate ef1ectS OF Intoxicating
liquor or whether it was in condition cana
BILE of deiberation, and of forming design.
If his mind was capable Of delberation and
of forming design, and if he did deliberate
and form a design to take the life Of lydia S.
Snow either before he left his house in Scar
boro or at any other time before he did take
hery life,-and that is to for you to determine
from the evidenee-and did take her life in
pursuance of that deliberation and design,
even though he may have been partially under
the influence of Intoxicating liquors either
either Immediately partaken of or not, then he
is guilty of murder of the first degree and you
should SO find without hesitation.
have already said to you that drunkenness,
which is the mental condition of one under
the immediate effects of intoxicating liquor. is
no excuse for crime, and does notrelieve a man
from criminal responsibility.
But when the degree of crime is made by
the statute to depend upon the state or condi
ton of the criminals mind, then intoxication.
which does affect the condition and state of the
mind becomes proper subject of inquiry by
the jury, for the purpose of ascertaining what
that state or condition of the mind was, and
for no other purpose.
If person wilfully and voluntarily dis
charges loaded revolver at the head of
another, and thereby causes death without
lawful excuse, the law as I have said, would
imply such malice as would make that act
murder, in the absence of any evidence to the
contrary, and drunkenness would not make it
any less murder.
But the statute says that when this act is
committed with sedate mind and specific
intention to take life, formed with delibera-
ton, it shall be murder of the first degree
Hence intoxication, or any other fact which
tends to show that the accused was not in a
state of mind capable of elaboration and re-
Election, is always competent evidence for the
jury, the fact of intoxication being admissible
not to excuse the crime, but for the purpose of
ascertaining what the crime is which he has
committed.
This principle has recently been stated in a
decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States in the following language:
CAT common law, indeed as a general rule,
voluntary intoxication, affords no excuse,
justification or extenuation of a crime
committed under its influence; but when
statute establishing different degrees of muir
der requires deliberate generalization, in order
to constitute murder in the first degree, the
question whether the accused is in such con-
dition of mind by reason of intoxication or
otherwise, as to be incapable of deliberate pre-
uGulldllOu, ueCGSSdIDy U6COIUGS u ludU6Ild1 SUD-
ject for consideration by the jury
So, gentlemen, if you find the respondent
fred the fatal shots. that he was responsible
under the rules Of law given, and that he did
not have sedate mind, mind capable of
elaboration, whether that want of capacity
was caused by intoxication or otherwise, in
the absence of all evidence showing any heat
of passion or sudden provocation, then he is
guilty of murder Of the second degree.
The indictment presents that on the 9TH day
of September the accused at Portland, in this
county, committed the crime of murder upon
the person of Lydia IS. Snow. The burden
rests upon the state to prove what is set out
in the Indictment beyond a reasonable doubt.
When that is proved, then Ethe respondent is
convicted and the verdict should be guilty Of
murder of the first degree, or guilty of muir
der of the second degree, as the jury should
find unless he interposes some defence other than
sane denial of the allegations against him. If
he puts in the plea Of insanity, the plea that he
had not mind sufficient to comprehend the DIFF
ference between right and wrong, as to the
particular act under investigation, and estab-
fishes the allegation by preponderance OF
evidence only, then he overeomes the convic-
ton to which the State would be otherwise
entitled, and the jury should return verdict Of
Gentlemen Of the jury, the trust imposed
upon you is one of the highest and most re-
sponsible that can be conferred by the con-
stituted authorities of the State. 1t
is a sacred trust to be executed 10y
ally and conscientiously, because upon
the due and proper observance and enforce
ment of the law depend the security and hap
piness of the citizen, and the welfare and pros
perity of the nation.
1t is no more your duty to acquit the inno-
cent than it is to convict the guilty, and it il
no more your duty to convict the guilty thar
to acquit the innocent. It is your duty to dc
both, if the law and the evidence in any given
case, warrant it.
Sanctity of the law is the foundation upor
which civilized society rests. When the Law
loses its sanction, when private rights and
public enactments are violated with impunity
the period of anarchy and barbarism is al
hand.
The grave and serious responsibilities Incl
dent to this important issue have passed from
the counsel and are about to pass from me
They are soon to press upon you with all then
power. Bear like true men the burden resting
upon you. Determine the questions of fact
involved in this case as you have sworn to do
according to the law and the evidence. The
sciences will be satisfied with nothing less.
THE VERDICT.
After the jury retired at about 1l.30 o'clock,
the large crowd of spectators, including forty
or fifty ladies, did not leave the court room
but remained in their seats waiting for the
verdict. Shortly before 2 O'Clock the jury an
nounced that they had agreed. Considerable
time was wasted in trying to find the counsel
for the defence, who had gone out to dinner.
1t was 2.20 o'clock when the jury appeared and
took their eeats. Libby sat in his accustomed
place outside the rail, his son and daughter by
his side.
The roll of the jurors was called and all an
swered to their names. The clerk then asked
the jury il they had agreed on a verdict. The
foreman replied that they had. The prisoner
was then told to stand up and look upon the
foreman and the foreman was commanded to
look upon the prisoner, according to the usual
legal form. The jury was then asked what
verdict they bad agreed upon. The foreman
replied.
Guilty"
Guilty Of what?" asked the clerk.
The foreman replied: "Of murder in the
second degree"
Libby took the verdict calmly and his chill
dren made no demonstration. Soon afterwsrd
be was removed to the JAIL to await sentence.
MIR. Moulton gave notice to the court that at
the proper time he should file motion in ar
rest of Judgment and exceptions.
1t is reported that four ballots were taken
by the jury. The first was informal. The Sec
ond stood for murder in the second degree
and for murder in the first degree. The third
stood 8 fer murder in the second, to for MUIR
der in the first degree. On the fourth ballot
the jury was unanimous.
MARRIAGES..