Bridgeton pioneer. (Bridgeton, N.J.) 1884-1919, 1890-01-23
70 2cOI

1t might be that the three men when
they had returned fir III he woman,
Browns, went into tht hou-., as Mr..
Hennes had testified h. had n them
do; they might have goa into the
mouse for some purpos ou n they
say they did not, or ~ una, ne thev
went in to see where Kanx was. 1t
might be that Knox had comm tred
the deed, or it may be that the three
men did it themselves.
This evidence proves that these
three men also had as inucn oppor-
tunity to do the deed as Knox had.
The Judge referred to RTE evidence by
the defense in which it was shown that
Mrs. Roedle and Leitchie tad spoken
OF Annie's being dead, aud dead drunk.
This he defined as not original evil
dence.
The testimony of Warrington as to-
the statement of Mrs. Roe.il :, - sought
to be shown by the def-ns4 was not
original testimony and important as
to Warrington, as sworn to by Knox.
1t only went to show that p p4rties we're
there with opportunity to commit the
deed.
Allusion was made to the evidence
that Knox was very drunk and wanted
to fight Roedle, the cunning party and,
others.
This might have some significance
for the consideration of the Jury, the
Judge said, and why appeared further
on in the charge. The blood on his
hand, Knox explained Game from his
nose; his father-in-law aud his wife
had testified that they saw blood on
his moustache.
The statements of xxx as % the
blood upon his hand were carefully re-
viewed and the Judge said the Jury
must consider the QUESTION of what
would be the natural result sf bleed
ing from the nose; whether the blood
would trickle down upon his clothes.
There was no effort made by Knox to
conceal the blood.
The Judge said Knox's drunken CON-
dition must be taken into consider
ation-whether his drunken condili n
had clouded his brain. The Judge
had given as the first three PROPOSE
tions of the case to be considered
Knox's inebriety; his opportunity, and
the blood on his hand; he now said "a
fourth element relied upan on the
part of the State, was Knox's state
ments that he had killed scab; and
killed a d black black
Annie.
Knox's farher.in-law said he was ac-
customed to making this kind of state
ment in drunken vaporlngs, but the
jury would take them into considera-
tioe. Lutz testimony, said the Judge,
is of the utmost Importance. If he
made the statements sworn to by
Lutz he must have had some knowl-
edge of the tragedy that had occurred;
drunken vaporing could not create
such imaginings. Did Luz tell the
truth? Did Knox say that? If he did
he must have had some knowledge Of
the act. The Judge charged still
further in this line and then he turned
to the crime itself by way Of definition.
He said murder consisted in three de-
grees, first, second and third degrees
or manslaugHter. Murder in the first,
degree was where any one had pre-
meditatedly killed another, going
about it Intentionally. Second degree
was where death resulted from doing
him or her a given bodily injury from,
general malevolence, or ''cusse6-
ness.n
Manslaughter Is when person does
an illegal act without an intention ros
kill or to do bodily harm, and deatmis'
the result.
1t was in evidence in this case that
Knox was drunk, but how drunk was
not shown.
One of the limitations OF murder was
whether man is acoounta ole in the
first or second degree.
When the death is the result of gross
drunkenness the crime committed can
not be murder in the first degree; the.
offense is made only in the second
degree; but if man gets drunk in
order to commit murder, then the
offense is murder in the first degree.
If man is too drunk to know what
he does, or to have an intent to COM
NIT murder the offense is murder in
the second degree.
Between second degree and. man.
slaughter drunkenness cuts no agure
in the limitation.
With directions as to bringing in q
verdict in the second degree or for
manslaughter, or. upon reasonable
doubt, to requit, the Judge closed his