Year: 1878

TRIAL OF HARLEY G. BRowN.-C CONNECTION Of Train
WTecker-I Verdict Of Wdnsidughtcr.-The trial of the
train wrecker Harley q. Brown, was concluded in the
Court of Over and Terminer at about five O'Clock Sat
urday evening. The prisoner threw passenger tram
of from the track of the Philadelphia, Whining
ton IL Baltimore Railroad wrecked the tram ana
killed four men, two of them passengers and two
train hands. The act committed June - last the
prisoner having confessed the deed stated that he
committed it not with the intention of throwing the
train off, but to report the obstruction ana thus re-
commend himself for employment by the company.


Argument for the State was begun by \. I. Robin
SON. Esq, who cOntendcd that at common law Brown
was guilty of murder that of all attempts to prove
case Of insanity that of the defense in this
the worst and that the guilty intent on the part OF
Brown is plain: He made the point that II Brown
thought he had thrown the tic Oft the track why did
he stop the train? He rdiculed the idea of detectives
assuming to be judges of human naure-tllis in view
of TaggartS assertion that there was not bad line in
Browns countenance. He thought detectives should
solve the problem of who killed Nathan, abducted
Charlie Ross, robbed the Manhattan Bank and stew
arts grave before pretending to be judges of human
| nature. If Harley Brown had not admitted that he
threw the train from the track, the detective would
never have found it out He argued that it was the
duty of the defence to show not that Brown def
cient in common sense, or was little silly, eccentric
or peculiar but that he was actually unable TO diN-
tingush right from wrong. before they could cSab-
lish condition of mind that would pallatc or excuse
his crime. As an evidence that the prisoner could
! distinguish right from wrong find that he lied
about what he had done after committing the act that
night lie also rdculed the idea of saying be was in
sane because with four men killed by his hand he was
unncrved and bit his finger nails and pulled his hand


kerchef Many men do these things in theirYaIa mo
| ments without their sanity being quCStiopCd. Mr
| Robinson concluded by showing that by al laws il


any one is engaged in an unlawful act and death j.


OcCasiOnCd thereby it is murder though il i'll tho


Mr. Lore for the defense, then asked what position


the State tOOi-WhethCr it claimed Il verdict Of mur


der in the first degree, under the special statute.


whether it claimed that the crime might he graded


Mr.. Robinson said that was question for the jury


Chief Justice C0megys said that he had undCTstco.


the State to claim that il the proof be not sufficient t


Justify verdict of murder in the first degree, th


counts of the indiCtment sufficient to justify


verdict in either degree, or of m0nSlaughcr


Mr.. Lore then addressed the court asking it t


charge that the intent being Il material part OF th
indictment, must be proved that where the cnnicS


sion of the prisoner is introduced in evidence tn
whole must be taken; and that if the jury halt o
wavcr. the prisoner must have the benefit Of tn


doubt He objected to the first, second third and fiji
counts of the Indictment which specify the Vcloct
of the locomotive of the causes Of the engil
/, GERS dcath-sOmething over which the prisoner ha


tive in that it did not use the words of the ndctmc


He therefore asked the court to charge that the pri,


oncr could not be convicted under this indictment.
+ Mr.. Lore argued that the act was either that OF


fend nCarnate or of fool and making strong al
gumCnt from the testimony adduCcd To prove q!
latter. Then again the intent to kill the cngincc
which is a material aTorment i'll the indictment


not proved by the state, and they are bound To prov


it Brown must go free Mr.. Lore spoke about Oh


hour and twenty minutes.


: Attorney General Pennington, for the State, argue
that intent is presumed from the circumstances a
tending the commission of the crime and that ever
: sane person is presumed 10 intend the natural an
. ordinary consequences of his own act With Teie
cnce to the confession he admitted that it should
all before the jury, but claimed that il was clCar
i within their province to accept or reject all or an


part Of it without lis being directly c0ntradicte
r Chief Justice Comegys charged the jury at thr,
- O'Clock in the afternoon defining the different grad
u Of fcGnious homicide ard saying that Brown w
y certainly guilty of one Of the three unless the jul
u believed him Irresponsible The jury in an hour Al
= half after retiring returned with verdict OF ma
: slaughter. Sentence was deferred. The penalty
: one to five years Imprisonment and four hundred
four thousand dollars fine. He was subsequent


fined the full extent of the iaw-*iGJo, and five yea
Fl Imprisonment.