The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-01-04

| DOSE.
The argument in the case OF the Stat,
against Rhoda Turner and Dr. j. Nixor
was closed yesterday by Attorney General
Peters, in mastery review of the test
mony and powerful plea for verdict o.
conviction. AT the conclusion OF thi.
speech Gen. Peters was warmly compli-
menIed by brother lawyers for his superb
efforts. Judge Du Bose then charged the
jury.
THE CHARGE.
"The Indictment" said Judge Du Bose,
contains two counts charging defendants
with the crime Of abortion and with an
| attempt TO commit that oiiensc. The
language OF the Code, Section 8, 81 is that
every person who shall administer TO any
woman pregnant with child, whether such
child be quick or not, any medicine, drug
or substance whatever, or shall use or
employ any instrument or other means
whatever with intent TO destroy such child
and shall destroy such child before its
birth, unless the same shall have been
done with view 10 preserve the life OF
the mother, shall be punished by imprison-
ment in the penitcntiary.
This section of the Code, rs may be
readily perceived, defines what is abor-
ton, and prcscribes the punishment Tor
the commission oi the oilense. The SOC
ton following 5,312 of the Code, is in
tended TO punish offenders who may at
tempt TO commit the crime defined in the
preceding section, and is in this language:
Every person who shall administer any
substance with the intention TO procure
the miscarriage OF a woman then being
with child, or shall use or employ any-in.
strumcnt or other means with such intent,
unless the same shall have been done with
view TO preserve the life of such mother,
shal! be punished by imprisonment in the
penltentary, etc, etc.
You will first consider whether defend
ants, or either OF them, are guilty Of the
charge OF committing an abortion by adj
ministcring 20 Que Willie Tisdell, a woman
pregnant with child, any medicine. drug
or substance whatever, or used or em-
ployed any instrument or other means
whatever with intent 20 destroy such
chIld, and did destroy such child before
It's birth, aud that the same was not done
with view to preserve the life of the said
Willie Iisdell. Before you can convict
defendants the proof must show that be-
lore the finding OF the indictment Willie
Iisdell, a woman, was pregnant with child;
that defendants, or either OF them, adj
mlnistered medicine, drugs or substance
OF some kind or description TO the said
Willie Tisdell, the intent being 10 destroy
such child, and did destroy such child be-
fore its birth not with the view OF pre-
serving the life of such mother.
"IOu may look 10 the testimony Of the
physicians who, under the orders OF the
court, examined the dead body Of the
said Willie Tisdell, 10 determine whether
or not she WIS pregnant before her death,
and how long she was In that state, and
when she was delivered OF such child, and
whether such child was delivered In the
course of nature, or was brought about by
the Use Of drugs, medicines or other sub
stances intended 10 produce that result or
whether any instrument was 80 used IA 10
cause such abortion. In this connection
you may look 10 the proof II defendants,
or either Of them, had In their possession
any medicines, drugs or instrument suita- |
BILE Tor the purpose oi comnittlng an abOr- |
ton, and whether the body Of Willie lis |
dell showed the effects OF such instruments |
or medicines. The proof must show that |
the medicines or instruments used were |
adapted to the commission Of the o1onso, or |
that either or both Of these methods were |
rcsortcd 10 10 effect that end. The proof |
should show that the medicines or the |
instruments used were adapted 10 the |
Of the crime.
"lou may infer, In the event Of an
abortion being proved, that the means |
used were sufficient
'1ho death OF the child must have oc-
Cured Ia one Of the modes charged in the |
indictment. Either by instruments or
The proof must show. In tho event an |
ABORTION was committed, that II was not /
lone 90 save the life Of the mother"
The Judge continued In this strain for
Iorty-iive minutes. reviewing the evidence |
aud pointing out 10 the jury how
he law should be applied TO the facts be.
ore them. The Judge overlooked no
point or detail. and gave the jury an ex.
analysis Of the law.
The jury retired at . o'clock pm. and |
II o'clock pm wcro brought back into
'ourt, when Foreman Mitchell announced |
hat the Jury had not yet agreed, but
would In al probability he able 10 come 10
In grccmcnt this morning. The Jury were
hen excused until this morning nj . |
o'clock. when they will agnin retire 10
consider Of their verdict.