The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1893-08-21

con ceaIing crime which had been com
mitted.
THE DUTY OF THE STATE.
"Of course In the consideration of these
matters. and in the conclusions you shsll
reach. you will hear In nfnd always that
1t Is the duty of the State to prove the
existence OF the criminal act charged be-
yond a reasonable doubt.
Now. Rentietnen, This Is n case which la
largely dependent upon circumstantial
evidence. So rar as it affects the de-
fendaht. | have already charged you the
law In answering the request of counsel
for defendant. / a you to under
stand that the Court does not express,
and does not intend TO express, any opin-
ion upon any question of fact 10 this case
about which there fs any doubt. IL does
not intend to convey to you any conclu-
sion which 0 should reach upon the
whole testimony in the cnse. That is u
duty which the law devolves upon you.
and not upon the Court, and the Court
feels that in leaving II to a jury chosen
as you have been, men of character and
Intelligence, the law safely leaves for
you TO determine these conclusions as to
the fact. II all the facts. which you fud
as independents facts, point irresistaply
10 bur one conclusion, that the defendant
Is guilty beyond q reasonable doubt, then
you will find a verdict against her, SUD
ject to the rules of law which the Court
will give you. with reference to your
verdict and the character of it.
1.-The Court has been relieved, gentle
men. from stating the evidence ut length
in this case, because it has been pre-
sented both on the part of this State and
the defense in q most thorough, able and
exhaustive manner. The arguments of
counsel for a peiiod OF eight hours upon
the questions OF act which the State or
the defendant Is relevant or should be
considered by you In reaching your con-
clusion. It has bean dons so thoroughly,
so ably and so well OF the part of both
sides; that it relieves the Court from
summarizing the evidence which 1t would
be compelled to doif in Its Judgment all
the facts of the case bsariu9 upon the
conclusion to be reached had not been
thoroughly presented to you by counsel.
Now, with reference to the law bearing
upon this case. What / now charge you
are 10 take as the law in the case, Won are
10 apply It to the conclusion of facts
which You shall reach.
WHAT MURDER IS.
Murder is the unlawful killing of q
reasonable being with malice afore-
thought, express or implied, aud uDless
malice be presented, the homicide,
although criminal, cannot bs murder.
Malice is the dictate aud outgrowth of a
wicked and depraved heart. b woke /
disregard of the rights aud safety of
others. Il Is not necessarily special
hatred or i'll will toward the deceased,
and it may be present where an evil
design to inhict great bodily injury re-
gardless of consequences exists generally,
Dut although express evidence Of malice
may be wanting, the law will pevsrthe-
less imply the existence Of malice III all
cases of an Intentional and unlawful
killing OF a human being. no matter
What motive may nav induced the
homicide or actuated the slayer. This is
murder as it was at common law. Murder
in this State is divided into two degrees
murder in the first degree and murder in
the second degree.
''fhe statute of This State provides that
all murder which shall be Dsrpetrated by
means of poison, or lying in wait. or by
any other kind of wilful. deliberate and
premedltated killing. or which shall be
committed in prepetrating or attempting
TO perpetrate any arson, rape, sodoniy,
robbery or burglary. shall be deemed
murder in the first degree, and all other
Kinds of murder shall be deemed murder
of the second degree, aud the jury before
whom any person indicted for murder
shall be tried, shall, ii they fnd such
person guilty thereof, designated by their
verdict, whether it be murder in the
first or second degree.
ITO ind the defendant guilty OF murder
in the first degree in this case, o must
~ NLAAS SAo "Ao VA
murder which WAS perpetrated by means
Of mercurial poison, no matter in what
form 1t may be, the operative cause must
be mercurial poison, with q wilful, DELHI
crate n premeditared Iutention on her
part to kill her son, which was formed
prior to the administration OF the poison.
1t is sufficient If there was u design aud
determination to kill her son distinctly
fortned in the MIND of the defendant, at
any before the poison WAS ad-
miuistered.
LAS 10 murder in the second degree.
the Court has most carefully considered
the question as to whether they should
leave that to the jury under the statute,
but after a most careful examination OF
all the authorities. ard in view of the
fact that thai question has not been
passed upon in this State, either in the
Supreme Cours or the Court of Errors; IN
view OF the fact that the SUPREME Court
OF the State of Connecticut upon u
statute which is almost Identical In
language with the statue or this State,
held that it was proper for the trial judge
to leave the question TO tbs jury as to
whethet or not there was murder In the
second degree. if they find the
absence of those elements in the
case which the Court instructs
them constituted murder in the frat
degree, and also in view hat III favor OF
life and d construction Of the statute
which would permit the lesser punish
meut Instead OF the punishment of death, :
as prescribed for murder i'll the first de-
gree. the Court mas determined to charge
you the law upon this point as folio ws.
and You will 50 take 1t from the Court:
/ charge you tnat IL you lind hat the
defendant murdered Johu f. shaun. her
son, by means of mercurial polsau. and
that her acts were not wiiiful, deliberate
and p~remeditated killing, and that there
was no intention to take life on her part,
theE you may find her, IL you so flnd the
facts. guilty Of murder. as / hav defined
ii, bringing in u verdict of murder In Lhe
second degree.
MANSLAUGHTER.
II also charge you that If you hud that
the defendant is not guilty of murder.
then you may consider the question as to
whether she is guilty of -nIansiaugbter.
Any homicide caused by gross careless
ness OF negligence of any person in the
discharge OF any act OF discharge of any
duty Is m~anslaughter. The defendant
was, according TO the testimony. acting
a. tue nurse OF the deceased during his
last Illness, and administered to him the
greater part Of his food and medicine.
Gross careIessness or negligence may
.---.A - s 49, -. -. $50.