The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1897-02-05
MURDER IN FIRST DEGREE
WAS THE VERDICT OF THE JURY IN
THE KIPPIE CASE,

Case Under the Statute of 1893
Shortly after 10 o'clock this morn
ing Thomas F. Ripple, who so brutally
murdered his wife on the 91st of jan
uary, 1896, will be- sentenced by Judge
Prentice to hang by the neck until
dead, at Wethersheld sometime within
the next six months. Under the law
passed in 1893 Ripple will be his own
executioner. The statute referred to
provides that a person convicted of
murder in the first degree shall be
transferred to the states prison and
shall there hang himself on an auto
matte gallows and that the convicted
person shall be sentenced to hang
within a persiod of not less than one
month nor more than six months after
conviction and sentence.
At III o'clock yesterday morning
Judge Prentice finished his charge to
the jury, and few moments after the
twelve men, on whose decision depend
ed human life, filed out of the jury
box and down to the jury room on the
floor below.
The curious crowd that had thronged
the court room and gallery since the
beginning of the trial was on hand and
after the jury had retired continued to
hang about awaiting the verdict. At
lis the jury had not yet reported, and
recess was taken until o'clock,
At 3 o'clock it was announced that
the jury was ready to report. Then
deathly quiet spread over the curious
crowd which had during the trial seiZ-
ed with avidity each especially horri-
BILE detail as a choice morsel for their
morbid tastes. The same faces which
have become familiar during the trial
peeped down from the gallery and
stared from the visitors chairs in the
court room. Slowly, silently and SOL
emily the twelve men who had de-
cided Tom Kippies fate filed back to
the Jury box.
A hum of excitement filled the air.
Over at one side Of the dock sat the
murderer bolt upright, that same start
led, hunted look in his eyes, the same
peculiar nervous twitching of the facial
and cervical muscles and pale as death
with the head craned slightly forward.
After the jury had become seated
silence again reigned. Deeper grew the
hush about the room. In few mo-
ments the stiffness was broken by the
voice of the clerk of the court, inquir-
ing of the foreman of the jury If ver-
dict had been arrived at. The answer
was in the affirmative, and then came
the announcement of the verdict,
guilty Of murder in the first degree, y
and Tom Kippie's fate was sealed.
Over in the dock there was not a
movement, the prisoner was too dazed
to cause any commotion, and with his
hands unshackled for the first time
since his violent outbreak at the be-
ginning of the trial, the meaning of the
verdict seemed to be sinking deep into
his mind.
Soon after Ripple was taken out to
the waiting carriage and driven back to
the jail He will be brought down TO
court again this morning and receive
+ his sentence.
In charging the jury Judge Prentice
explained the nature of the charge
contained in the indictment for muir
der in the first degree against the pris-
oner. He described homicide as word
descriptive Of all manner of killing a
human being Under certain circum-
stances, he said, the law regards homi-
eide as eXcusable.
Criminal homicide, he said, is divid-
ed into two great general classes, muir
der and manslaughter. Murder is the
unlawful killing of another with pre-
meditation and malice aforethought.
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing
of another without the elments of mall
ice or generalization
He gave the definition of murder in
the first degree as given In the statutes.
The charge contained in the indictment
he said, was that Mrs. Ripple was kill
ed wilfully and with malice and pre-
meditation and that 1t was, therefore,
murder in the first degree. To bear out
this charge, however, the murder must
have been wilful, deliberate and pre-
neditated, that is, thought over and
the design formulated in the mind.
One might murder, he said, while In
a condition Of intoxication such as to
render his mind incapable of deliber-
ating or forming plan. That would
not be murder in the first degree. When
such q state of facts exists the extent
of the influence upon the volition and
reason is to be considered.
Judge Prentice then defined the rea-
sonable doubt as 1t had bearing upon
the evidence and the defence Of insan-
ity. He said the jury should not find
the accused guilty of murder in the
first degree if all the essential ele-
ments Of the case are not proven be-
yond a reasonable doubt, and should
not find him guilty of murder in the
first degree, if they have had any rea-
sonable doubt as to his sanity.
Under the form of indictment used in
the case, he said, the jury could bring
in verdict of murder in the first de-
gree, of murder in the second degree
of manslaughter, of not guilty on ac-
count of insanity, or of not guilty.
Insanity. he said is a well establish
ed defence The law does not hold an
insane person responsible for his acts
any more than society does. If there
were such unsoundness of mind as tc
prevent the accused from realizing the
consequences OF his act, he should be
given the benefit of it.
The question was. he said whether
the prisoner was sane or insane when
the act was committed. There should