Year: 1859

This was a material in determining tho
animus of the prisoner when he committed the
act for which he is now arraigned. Mr. G.
quoted several authorities to sustain his view
The husband was not bound to stop to investigate
the truth of such disclosure, but was justified in
committing such acts as that disclosure would ne
cessariy and naturally cause. This was one of
those maddening impulses instilled into his bosom
under circumstances which entitled him to credit it
and act upon it, and which led him to commit the
homicide. In numerous cases the propriety of the
rule has been acknowledged and acted upon, which
would allow the circumstances of extenuation to be
shown upon the trial. The of Jarboe, in this
court among others, was cited, in which this very
rule was applied. The case of Singleton Mercer
was another one of the same sort He regarded
that as case of seduction, although the jury
deemed 1T case of ravishment. But the
communication of the injured party to the party
bound to afford protection, are always received:
and but for this rule Singleton Mercer would have
died on the scatfold. The defence did not propose
to make Mrs. Sickles formally witness. The rule
excluding the testimony of a wife in the case of
her husband applied in cases where they were mu-
tualy interested, but here Mr.. Sickles alone was
interested, and this trial did not affect her at ALL
Again, the rule for the benefit of the marriage
relation: and if either of the parties chose to waive
the rule they could do so. Lastly, they contended
that this communication was part of the gesto,
and as such was entitled to be received in evi-
dence. The uninterrupted grief of that night was
the bridge which covered the chasm and connect
ed this communication with the subsequent act of
homicide. Several cases were cited in support of
this branch of the argument. Shall the accounta-
biity of this defendant be made to depend upon
anything else than the workings of his own mind
Who lighted the flame in the breast of the accused
they proposed to show The materials were in ev-
cry mans bosom, and only needed the application
of the torch to burst forth into fame


Mr. Ould remarked that he had supposed the
defence would not attempt to introduce this on the
ground of provocation +; but if they did, he would
offer one or two authorities.


Mr. Brady.-We offer this, not as showing prov
ocation, but exclusively communication to the
| accused exciting him to that state of mind under
| which he was aboring when he committed the
act. He relied in this the instructions of
this court in the case of Day; and Mr. B. proceeded
to read from those instructions. There were ex-
cceptions to the rule rejecting hearsay evidence
tie proceeded to read sections 663 and 6G4 Whar-
tons Criminal Law. Suppose it became necessa-
ry to prove that man had headache all the
physicians in the world could not prove it. 1t
could only be established by hearsay. If one in
slant of deadly intent is enough to convict men
OF murder, why is not one instant of mental dis
| ease sufficient to exhonerate him from the legal
consequences OF his acts? And how can we prove
such mental disease unless are allowed to intro
duce evidence as to that fact? On the conclusion
OF Mr.. Bradys argument, the prisoner was re-
| man1ad tla