The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1902-06-25
BARKER STAYS IN PRISON
Conviction Of the Man Who Shot the
Rev. John Keller Upheld.
New jersey Supreme Court Says Eefer>
encs to m Assault on Mrs. Barker
Was Properly Ruled Out.

Trenton, n. 1.-THE Supreme Court
has sustained the conviction Of Thomas
G. Barker, who is serving a fve-year
term In State Prison for shoot.
Ing the Rev. John Keller. Of
Arlington. whom he accused Of
assaulting his wife. The decision was
announced by Chief Justice Gummcre.
particular attention being given to the
reasons of the court for sustaining the
exclusion by Judge Blair of evidence
concerning the alleged assault on Mrs.
Barker.
The reasoning Of the court on this
question Is on a line entirely new In
the decisions of the State and diner
entiates between an intent to commit
murder and an intent to commit man
slaughter The opinion says that 1t
appears that IL Barker had succeeded
IN his attempt to kill Keller and had
been indicted for murder. these conver.
satiOns under certain conditions might
have been competent evidence on the
question Of the degree Of his guilt. It
was contended by Barker's counsel
that they were equally admissible at
the trial for assault.
The argument In support of this was
that the grayamen Of the o6ense was
the intent; that the expression. "A1
intent to kill was synonymous with
An intent TO commit murder" for
the reason that IL a felonious killing.
done In the Execution of a preexistins
intention. Is murder. and not man.
slaughter. the absence Of an intent to
take life being distinguishing feature
Of the latter crime: and that Barker
was entitled to prove anything tending
to show that his crime. II the assault
had resulted In Keller's death. would
not have been murder.
This argument. the Chief Justice
says. rests upon false premise. for
while 1t Is true that the absence Of
malice Is one Of the characteristics Of
manslaughter. many cases might be
suggested where. although the intent
to take life was present when the fatal
wound was inflicted, yet the crime
would be manslaughter and not mur.
der.
The court cites the revision Of 1893.
by which the language Of the Crimes
act was changed by the insertion Of
intent to kill" In the category Of
crimes instead of Intent to commit
murder. manslaughter. burglary. rob-
berry and the like" which had been the
language of the statutes since 1s45.
From this the court deduces that the
Legislative intent was to do away with
the necessity Of alleging the character
Of the homicide intended to be com.
mitted by the accused. and to make II
sufficient to prove that the assault was
committed with the intent feloniously
to take life.
1T follows" says the Chief Justice.
that testimony offered by the accused
for the purpose Of showing that at the
time Of committing the assault his
mind was infamed by passion pro-
duced by reasonable cause was imma-
terial. the question being whether he
Intended feloniously to take the life Of
Keller and not whether he intended to
commit murder"
The court finds no error in the re-
fusal to admit the testimony offered
to show that Barker was insane o: In
the contention that the manner t
which the struck jury was drawn "
an invasion OF the rights Of Barker.