The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-01-10

let it take up the matter which every
mother must have close at heart, the
cigarette habit, which is killing off
scores of boys and is now becoming far
too prevalent among girls. In fact there
are many things which are more worthy
of reform than the costume of the bust
ness woman, who is always enough in
terested in her health to dress sensibly.
THE PARKER AND MAFEE DECISION
The decision in the Parker and McAfee
case is a very unfortunate thing so
cerned, and 50 far as the effect on the
lawless element in this community is
concerned. OF course the defendants are
entitled to a fair and impartial trial
under the law, and no doubt the SUI
preme court decided exactly what it
understands to be the law, but the
decision can hardly fail to strengthen
the common opinion that our criminal
law has become so strained in the line
of protecting the innocent that much of
its original purpose of conviction Of the
guilty has been lost. We do not say that
the court is at fault in this, but we do
say that the law as administered is so
lax that the country is filing UP with
professional criminals who have man
aged to escape just punishment through
the many avenues which the law seems
large amount Of this law is court-made
law. 1t is evident that the time is rap
idly approaching in this country when
some radical reforms will have to be
made in the system of criminal proceed
ure in order to assure the attainment
Of justice TO criminals.
There is one point in this decision as
to which we think many lawyers will
not agree with the court and that is
its decision that the declaration or ex-
clamation Of Eyster to his wife imme-
diately after the shooting was not a
part Of The res gestae. or, in common
phraseology, the event. The court
states the facts as to this as follows:
Mrs. Eyster testified that she and her
husband lodged upstairs over the store
in which Eyster was shot, that she went
upstairs to prepare the bed for the pur-
pose Of retiring. leaving the appellants
and her husband in the store. Soon
afterward she heard the report Of a re-
vOlver, which seemed to be Immediately
under where she stood; that she ran
down the hall toward the stairway lead
ing to the rooms above the store, and
when about midway of the hall her hus-
band fell into her arms and exclaimed,
My God. Mazda, I am shot, that she
dragged him to the bed and that he
said those two colored fellows shot
him. (She gave her husbands wOrds)
The prosecution then propOunded to
the witness the following question; ITO
refresh your recollection, I viii ask you
if he didn't say this: Those colored fell
lows that were in there when you were
there are the ones that shot me-.
Those are the words he used
The court holds that this statement
Of the murdered man was "a mere narra-
tive of a past event" and therefore
should have been excluded on the trial.
Why it should so hold is difficult to un-
derstand A narrative" of an occur
renee of this sort is excluded on the
theory that the party may concoct a
story or misrepresent the facts. The
words used in the progress of the event
are admitted as a part of the event
When did the event end? Did it end
when the bullet of the assassin reached
it's lodging place? Did not the attempt
of Eyster to escape from the room con-
stitute a part of the event? Was not
his falling into his wife's arms a part
of the event? Was not her dragging
him to the bed part of the event? To
a layman it would seem that when a
man is murdered the event might rea-
sOnably be considered TO be in progress
until he falls, and certainly the courts
have gone much farther than this in
many cases in determining what was a
part of the res gestae.
If this is the law it ought not be, and
no case could show the injustice of it
more strongly than this one. Two as
sassins enter a mans place Of business.
They wait till his wife leaves the room
and he is left alone. Then they shoot
him in cold blood He runs out of the
room, falls into her arms and says to
her that the men who were in the store
when she was have shot him. Men do
not indulge in narrative on such oc-
casions. The victim was stricken with
death. A bullet was lodged in his vitals.
His life blood was ebbing away He
was overcome with horror and pain.
What could be more natural than his
brief statement to his terrified wife as
TO how this sudden blow had fallen ?
What could be more natural than the
mere exclamation Of the fact as a re-
suit of his bodily and mental condition
1t is a mater Of universal experience
that men do make such exclamations
very commonly when thus unexpectedly
stricken. There was a case at Sullivan
only few days ago where a similar
exclamation was made. Possibly there
| was thirty seconds difference Of time
between the two EXPLANATIONS and the
respective bullet wounds that produced
them. The exclusion of such statements
is very dangerous law for the commun-
ity. In this case it takes away the chief
means Of Identifying the murderer, and
It seems reasonable to expect that II will
bava he aapaa affact In ~