Year: 1870

'''N''NN' 80 'N'a -


first on the extraordinary length oftim


taken bv the trial. He declared il tn


duty of the jury and himselfto devot


even three times as much time


necessary to give the prisoner q fal


trial. Passing ON to the case h


said that no man had a right to tax,
the law into his own hands Perhap


Richardson and Mrs. Mcfarland wer,
innocent; Richardson was brave man
who had devoted himself to the servic,
of his country during the late war: wa,
he likely man to dishonorahly seduct
a mans wife? moreover, it was I'm
likely that Richardson would marry
his mistress; men never do except un
der compulsion Mcfarland had giver
up his wife for two years; divorce
was had and on his death bed Rich


ardson married Mrs Mcfarland
a. a pure woman. The defense ac
knowledge the commission of the deed
but say it was the deed of an insane
man in the same breath they say that
he was justified in slaying an adulterer
this is not logical; they must take
either stand they cannot pretend tC
Justify the deed of an insane man. The
prosecution takes it for granted that the
prisoner is sane; such is the law, as
they will be informed by the Court;
without entering into the question Of
the nature and signs of insanity, any
Juror. anv sensible man can decide
when q man is mad


Mr.. Garvin contcnded that the de
fense had proved nothing more than
the intense excitement caused by the
prisoners troubles and uncomfortable
impulse; this was merely a passion OF
anger and could never excuse or palliatC
crime. He denied that the cases OF
Sickles and Cole were parallel ones, foi
their acts were done sudden and under
excitement, while even they should have
been convicted of some degree of mur
der


The District Attorney then reviewed
the testimony, showing that on the day
of the shooting Mcfarland showed an
intimate knowledge of Richardson :
habits and lay in wait for him, showing
rremeditation and design he leaned
| forward when Richardson entered, fired
and made his escape; in this proceed
ing are exhibited memory and judgment
and a perception OF danger, all imdica,
tive of sane mind the defense had
argued every question except murder
and had worked to blacken the charac-
ter of Mrs. Calhoun, Mrs. Sinclair and
Mr. Greeley. an attempt as absurd a.
unsustained by evidence.


Mr.. Garvin expressed the conviction
that the Jurors believed in Mcfarland :
guilt, but there might he doubt as Il
! the degree If guilty Of murder let
him be hanged; if of manslaughter let
| him 20 to the State prison. The law
must he vindicated in this case OF
there will he no security for life.
/ He felt sure that they would decide


according to evidence and their oaths


The Recorder then addressed the jury.
THE accused is not to be convicted nor
acquitted upon the speeches of the
counsel or convicted upon prejudice to
ward the dead or living, or because
public policy may demand an example
They must conscientiously reject, every


fact or circumstance in the evidence
which, in their estimation, cannot illus
trate the question of sanity or insanity
or malice. which does not bear upon the
time. place, mode and act of killing
and the state of domestic relations, il
was not material for them to adjudi,
cate. The question was how did the
prisoner believe about them and how
did that belief impress his mind sancIy
or insanely.


The Recorder then proceeded to
charge substantially every proposition
of the counsel for the defense upon the
subject Of insanity, and continued: "lt
YOU believe that theaccused armed him
self with loaded pistol and sought out
the deceased and shot him upon a
grudge or malice, intending to Kill, he
is guilty of murder in the first degree.
If (having Il loaded pistol) he shot the
deceased without intent or design to
take life and in the heat of passion, then
it NAV be either mans!aughter in the
third or fourth degree


The Recorder then charged most OF
the points asked 10y the defense as to
the first shooting. viz: That it cannot
be taken as evidence Of malice unless
the prosecution are satisfied that the
shooting was feloniouS, and if the jury
believe il was committed in a state OF
insanity, they are to discard 1t from
their consideration altogether. lie de
clined to charge that the non-prosecu
ton Of the defendant therefore is strong
evidence that the act was not
deemed crime at the time OF
its commission; upholding OF
prostration Of the marriage relation
should have nothing to do with their
verdict, and Fourierisn, free love .oI
seutimentalism on the one hand, Oh
moral reflections upon the conduct Of
the deceased man or living woman upon
the other hand, are not legltlmately ia
affect their verdict. The infexi
bic rule of jurors should be that
the aggrieved husband or father
or relative who takes the correction OF a
wrong into his own hands with a pisto
or knife and is not insane when he dlG
the correction, is not TO be acquitted
because it is the duty of any man tc
uphold the sanctity Of the marriage tlt
unassisted by legal procedure. If tht
prisoner took the law into his owl
hands in state of sanity and with
malice, he is guilty of felonious killing
If in a state of insanity he is not guilty
At three o'clock the jury retired


They reappeared in Court at ten minute:
To five The silence of death prevailed