The sun., 1893-03-23

hinrd hy defendant and submitted 10 chemi
dIsses either the aeecs.sd eess o would hsve beer
he spoke the truth. "'' '''''''' WV '
cyBnwHELMISG NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE.
In ny opInien the evidence. not only war.
@ Would Hdns SSss ntye wS Sifa e ssaS
nsss s4sssSssi@n has
often more reliable elements than direct, eyi-
cnssely to the com hs ission By The defendant
oi.ne crime & a verdict OF guilty may rest utSn 10
basil Ssn Tnsn whose unSn as
must bo relied upon and whose, passions or
Gegg Y tnss
variance II csnstlsutes the ii isher form Of ey.
Or the liberty OF tho defendant IS at stake.
snd netsSr in,ors nor the soIt cen ,Sn G9p
f9ensed by the unusual aeprnyity Of nature
epsed with his guilt. 1 and leaves AYES tha mind un-
(. mat, Ssf. h a a ii 6S ssds Be
TO free the field OF his own life. and to escape
tine int, ;S ,sd q
he planned her death at Sy met method which should
conce.l him as its author The circumstances
ineyitahy with its cause. and to forge tho chain
plainly defined from the secret marriage. on
M s On " s6 S n" 1881 fGsS there Of wsIs ths ys sc
" fS. 81 ats tbs Of Ss
| had been Obliged to contract In order to pos.
disclosures which wouI d ieopardize his repu-
fa mother INT into sness SECURITY ana into satis
faction with a temporary concealment OF the
aSy wsy Tnsn pns o
nccomplishes the DESTRUCTION Of his wife,s ldfe.
fey s before he ID das b.se s' s. Sr s @
marriage. | think TINT justice does not de-
m,nn,d that this defendant should have 2 new
dence or in tho charge OF the Recorder. which
As his counsel has insisted upon their exist
enre. II Ia necessary hat some OF the errors
sidsred by us.
NO LEGAL ERRORS ON THE TRIAL.
He insists that it was error to receive the
people He was uncle to the decensed; with
moved aaad % % i've mo1h nooa 'F The db
tlon with tho defendant. and is based upon its
being privileged. under that statutory prohibi;
Sn Which @ e%sns ssfs to the "s na
guilty osanother crime; namely. OF abortion.
Ihe frst ground OF objection Is untenable
witness was not employed by the deiend-
ant. In the second place he acquired no
any which hc was not already possessed OF. or
which was necessary for him In order to act in
privilege WAS not conferred to shield person
charged with the murder OF the patient. AS
hTi In bs Gf reSps 10 en- \
struction. or to believe in n Legislative intent.
which would operate to convert u statutory
Ing or Objectionable disclosure into protec-
tion for n person on trial for the murder OF the
The second ground Of. objection is nso un.
tcnRblc. because the evidence shows or tended
IT, IT, tse an M 9 f Iow t part
secret. TO prevent the obligation of having
destroy the fruit. and had been willing to, 10
that BY criminal mems; Then the EnowedR"
placed him more or less in their power TO COM
pel him to comply with their request.
IN the Of D TsS
ertons testimony. to the effect that the stat
u:e should not be construed to be appl!cahle
the. patient. apply to DR.. Hands testimony.
and a With even greater fores to the INSTANCES
se s, nS hight @ SoS!e $isd
ing cen~srsation n" With tie deieaiant. in
which. after boastinc Of his previous cxtcn-
or voatins fhes 'n
he nd mitted having previously contracted two
secret ~ Ss aIe Necessary to
Sible on the question OF motive. 1t threw light
upon It. With = previous secret marriage. tic
censcd would have STAN nod him .es a IGnmist
ana have ruined his reputation. II it would not
have subjected him to erin nnl prosecution.
The argument against the admissbility OF
the evidence ot the witness Lathnr presents
1sm rerhhaps tha at mrs. ssnGTs s Gut
m motive in q, case where the evidence TO charge |
the accused is wholly clrcum stantal the diff |
connection with tnis evidence from the, wit |
nesses Latham md Oliver. TINT while evidence
acter is inadmissible against one on trial for |
the commission Of criminal oiiense; u tho do
liz fSe1 aS
missibe. That the accused has suffered from
the unconscious influence m upon opinion Of the
against jurors who have sworn to coLvict upon |
evidence only which establishes the guilt OF
the accused.
THE cANASDA1GUA INCIDENT
The evidence OF witness Latham exhibited
the defendant with u young woman At q hotel
15S, IL @ wpb ard
heard In which tie defendant, suggested her
and "and Sa e% st i give
a pill nnh get him out OF the way. consider
that this evidence was admissible. because
to roIel tl,at strong nresumptton which would
initiate IN favor Of a husband when on trial for
in criminal cases should be confined strictly
to tho question In issue Ia not infringed upon
because the evidence offered. while tending to
prove some essential fact in the guilt OF the
accused. may also prove the commss ion Of
another offence. Such evidence is relevant
and admissible whenever its presence goes to
motive: Tor these facts ars essential elemcnts
Of crimc. People VS.. Stout. Parker's Grim.
n.
So in the present case. proof Of tho exist
ence Of the element of motive IL aided. In some
degree. by showing what were the defendants
relations and feelings toward his wife as evi-
enced by his conduct and his remarks whom
witt others.
Wharton. In his work on Criminal Evil
dence." snys ts5ll that on the trial Of u hus-
band for tn. murder of his wife. the state has
4 right to prove his adultery with another. as
illustrating a desire TO get rid OF the marital
F.laton; and s.d ne cites In support 81 the rule
tIes In other M States. In People VS. Stout the
tie. and the prosecution offered evidence to
show incestuous intercourse between defend-
nj N xvt xvh,, Ha;an nhap NJ