Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Duke University Libraries https://archive.org/details/officialreportofOOhyde OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE TRIAL OF ' A \ T X Y HYDE, FOE THE MURDER OF GEO. W. WATSON, ICLUDING THE TESTIMONY, THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL, AND THE CHARGE OF THE COURT, REPORTED VERBATIM. With Portraits of the Defendant and the Deceased. FROM THE SHORT-HAND NOTES OF WILLIAM HEMSTREET, OFFICIAL REPORTER OF THE COURT. J R. NEW YORK : McDIVITT, LAW BOOKSELLER, PUBLISHER AND IMPORTER, 81 NTassaxx street, 1872. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year eighteen hundred and seventy- two, I J. R. McDIVITT, in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. Deller & Walrath Printing Co., Publishers & Law Booksellers, 122 Liberty Street. i l ! ' I N 13 K X. -»-(♦»-<- hranneling Jury. .10 Oaring of tlie District Attorney.. .13 Anission of the act, &c.17 E|n Curley.17 Recalled.61, 87 My Ann Kelley.19 Asr Pixley.19 Recalled.22 Mgaret Manie.20 NconJ. Stowell .20 Cn;. C. Woglom.21 Recalled.85 SECOND DAY. Dr Joseph Creamer. .21 PROSECUTION RESTS. •'Icon to instruct the jury to find for defendant.24 Ar meat upon ...24 Moon denied, and rulings.25 OPENING FOR THE DEFENSE Hoird Daisley.38 Jan Thatcher.43 Ed' n Holloway.43 JolMarr.; .43 " Recalled..59 M il un Newton.44 Ale ndre Amos.. 47 8 INDEX, THIRD DAY. Sarah Masr. Edward Weaving. Isaac P. Maples. Kate Lown. Sarah Webb. Mary Milford. Eliza Jackson. Arthur Thomas. Thomas Whitaker.. Henry Potts. . . Mary Gleason.. Mary Dexter. Recalled. Kate Hanskaw. John Dexter. Margaret Hyde. Sarah Windley. John Windley. Fanny Hyde, Defendant. ... FOURTH DAY. Statement of District Attorney as to a juror. Joseph H. Barclay . Dr. John Byme.•* Recalled . •'] Dr. Charles Correy. ■ * Recalled. Sergeant Geo. W. Bunce. ...! .. . Thomas Langan..1 Eliza W. Watson.Ji FIFTH DAY. Lorenzo D. Tice... ••• • • Dr. Thomas Holmes. . A. P. Bachman. -ii Summing up for the Defense. Summing up by District Attorney. .. Charge of the Court . APRIL 15, 1872. ft.. A. B. TAPPEN, J. C. Presiding, and Associates, Justices of the Peace VOORHEES and JOHNSON. rhe People of the State of New York against Fanny Hyde. WINCHESTER BRITTON, District Attorney. PEEL D. MORRIS, PATRICK READY, I. B. CATLIN and THOMAS E. PEARS ALL, for the Defence. h BRITTON.—If the Court please, I move c;e of the People against Fanny Hyde, h des seem to be ready. '•lice TAPPEN.—Are you ready ? IrMORRIS.—Yes, sir; we are ready, h 30URT.—The Clerk will call a jury, h ollowing were accepted in the manner as ea:; J PANELLING THE JURY. f' ROUSS called and prelimina- nt administered. ^!r. MORRIS.—Where do you live? A. a. Street. hat is your business? A. Dry goods j e you married ? A. No. M you know Geo. W. Watson, the de- d A. No, sir. 1 ve you heard anything about the case fy Hyde, charged with killing George fnon, on the 26th of January last? A. I I ve you read anything about it ? A. I I ve you heard anything of the case ? A. Hi anybody expressed any opinion about S'n your hearing? A. Not to my knowl- 0v king have you been in business in A - Two y ears - - 1 iJ-iUJN.—Have you any conscientious scruples against finding a verdict of guilty where the punishment by law would be death ? A. No, sir. Q. Suppose the party be a woman, would that make any difference with your answer ? A No, sir. The Juror was accepted as satis factorii, and duly sworn. TAPSC0TT ““ A B f 4 ^“ H s 4 L Ar wl ” ' lo MetlS“ “ y “ r 7 A - ShiPPif! Stoet Y N“w&° f " A ' 86 S '” lUl ma1ri^d re ^ a ““ ° f family? A - Am not A Q i y0U read any acc011nt of this case ? Q. From what you have heard or read have cusedA^ °- Pmi0n ° r im P ression against the ac- Mr. BRITTON.—That is hardly a proper question on challenge for principal cause P A AjirT 7t U f0rmed 0r ex P resse d any opinion ? A. JNot that I am awmre of. 1 Q. From what you read'did you form or ex¬ press an opinion ? A. No, I have not formed ii VaS u 01 “ C time a «° siuce I read it. I have forgotten the circumstances. I have no present opinion. e 10 Q. Have you heard the case talked of? A. Yes. Q. At the time that you read about the case did you lomi any opinion or impression ? Mr. BRITTON.—I object to'that question on challenge for principal cause. The COURT.—All that may go to your sub¬ sequent challenge to the favor. Your present question is confined to challenge for principal cause. Mr. MORRIS.—At the time you read of this transaction did it make any impression on your mind -with reference to the case one way or the other—not what that impression was, but did it make any impression ? A. Yes. Q. Has anything occurred since that event to change that impression ? A. I formed no opin¬ ion ; but I had an impression it was a very sad affair. In fact I have almost forgotten. Q. Has anything occurred to change the im¬ pression you formed at that tune? A. None whatever. Q. You have a present impression with refer¬ ence to the case ? A. None on the merits of the case. I have an impression what it was. I have not followed the ease through the papers. I merely read an account of it on one occasion. Q. Do you distinguish between an impression and an opinion? A. As to which party was at fault, I have formed no opinion with regard to that. Q. Have you formed any impression on that subject at all as to whether there was any fault in any one ? A. I do not know that I have. Q. Can you say whether you have or not— have you formed any impression with reference to the question as to whether or not any one was to blame ? A. I imagine I have. Q. You have that impression still ? A. I have an impression that some one was to blame. Q. And it would require some evidence to re¬ move that impression ? A. Certainly it would. Mr. BRITTON.—Have you formed any im¬ pression whatever as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner ? A. None whatever. Q. All the impression you formed was that some one must have been to blame; as to who that person is you have not formed any impres¬ sion ? A. I have not. Q. That impression is a mere general impres¬ sion? A. It is a general impression; when we read anything of the kind— Q. Of an occurrence of that kind, that some¬ body is wrong ? A. Exactly. Q‘. But as to who it was you have no impres¬ sion? A. None whatever. The COURT.—Are you laboring under any bias or prejudice for or against the prisoner? A. None whatever. Q. Could you enter into the jury box and there try the case and render a verdict according to the evidence as though you never had heard of it ? A. Yes, sir - . Mr. MORRIS.—All men who have prejudice or bias imagine they have none; and the strong¬ er the prejudice the more unprejudiced they think they are. He says he has an impression, and that impression relates to the precise ques¬ tion at issue. A gentleman saying he has no prejudice on the subject does not remove the disqualification or difficulty. We want jui whose minds are free; who don’t go into jury box with an impression formed as to very r subject we are to try. Mr. BRITTON.—The subject to try is win er this defendant is guilty, as charged in the dictment. of the crime of murder. This ji says he has formed no impression as to the g or innocence of this party charged. That is point we are here to try; no other point is bel this court but that, and that he distinctly sti he has not formed any impression about says what no man could help saying who kn< that somebody has been guilty of violence. *' assumption of any intelligent man would that somebody was to blame; that is a gen impression, growing out of the fact that tl has been a death by violence. Any rule eluding on that ground, if adopted, woulc elude any juror of any intelligence who heard this man was killed. Mr. MORRIS.—But there is no other pe charged with this than the prisoner no\n trial. When he says he has an impression s. one.was to blame, he has reference to the ‘ oner on trial. Mr. BRITTON.—It maybe the accused, i very nature of the defense is that the elect» was to blame. He only got an impression o it was a sad affair; that somebody was to bl« Mr. i OR R IS. —If either one, it would eq 1; disqualify him. The COURT.—The Court comes to the n elusion that the juror has not disqualified Ji self in either of his answers. Your dial gi to the favor is not sustained. Mr. BRITTON.—Have you any conscier >u scruples against finding a verdict of } ltj where the punishment for the offense won h death? A. I have no conscientious sciJ* against finding a verdict, having been swe ai a juror. Q, Do you mean to say that your mind in such a condition that you would find a v lid if the testimony led to that conclusion ii c® mind, under the rules of law? A. I iniglp™ a verdict of guilty; that’s what I mean tgjH Q. Suppose the penalty of the law oi om verdict would be death ; the question is w tlw you have any scruples such as would pent your giving a verdict of guilty on the testify? A. I have conscientious scruples. The COURT.—Against rendering a did of guilty in a capital case, where the tesuoaj; warrants it ? A. Yes, sir. Mr. MORRIS.-Your opinion is inor"m reference to the policy of the law than ftiMJ else. Now, if you were sworn as a juroi WJf not you render a verdict according to t’H deuce in the case? A. I should feel boidfl do that. Q. You would want clear evidence bef* r a dering a verdict ? A. Yes. Q. If you were sworn as a juror do- J® think you could render a verdict aecorfcWj the evidence, uninfluenced by any opinh yj( might have with reference to the policy! 1 law ? A. I have never served on a jury 1 life, and know nothing about it, but I Pj could render a verdict of guilty if I wt sm 11 ed in my mind it'was correct—that the party ■as guilty. I do not know that I would have ay scruples. The COURT.—The Court say he qualifies imself as a juror. Mr. BRITTON.—Suppose the party on trial i be affected by your verdict was a woman, ould that make any difference as to your scru¬ bs ? Could you still render such a verdict as Ascribed. A. I think so. The juror was accepted and sworn. MARTIN J. COOLEY called and sworn :r challenge. For principal cause : Q. Where do you live? A. 515 Henry street. Q. What is your business ? A. Merchant. Q. Are you a man of family ? A. Yes. Challenge for principal cause withdrawn , and allenqe to the far or : 3- Have you any feeling of prejudice or im- ipsions against the accused that would inter- iewith your rendering an impartial verdict ? t No, sir ; I don’t think I have. 'challenge withdrawn. dr. BRITTON.—For principal cause : 1- Did you read an account of this killing at tl time it occurred? A. I did read an account o it, but it passed out of my mind. I- The facts having passed out of your mind, at/ou say, did you then form an opinion or h iression as to the guilt or innocence of the ac'rsed? A. I presume I did form an opinion aljhat time. Do you know whether you did or not. A. I ) not now. . Have you any opinion now as to the guilt oiunocence of’ the prisoner, charged with this offise ? A. No. . Have you any conscientious scruples agnst rendering a verdict of guilty where the tei mony warrants it, although the punishment is eath? A. I never served as a juror in such a fie. restion repeated by the Court. A. I cannot sa;[ have. j Is your mind entirely free and unbiased on lat point ? A. As I feel now I sliouldjdis- llli to. ■“ ie COURT.—On the question of conscien- uo, scruples the statute exempts you if you 1 . H is addressed to your conscience. The HU', ion is whether, when the evidence war- 1 an the verdict, have you conscientious scruples "gUst performing that duty. A. As I feel now 1 h e some ieeling in that direction. I do not , f I have any conscientious scruples, nit have always had the feeling that such a ‘ er ct would be distasteful to me. ^ Do you mean to say you would be "vei to rendering such a verdict if the evi- aen warranted? A. No, sir; I do not mean to s| that emphatically. Q How far do you mean to say it ? A. I mea to say I prefer not being a juror. V Suppose the . evidence was such that ft™ satisfied in your own mind, under lies of law the prisoner was guilty of ense charged, would your mind then be the the in such a condition on that subject that you would hesitate to find a verdict of guilty? A. No, sir ; I don’t think I would. Q. Suppose the prisoner to be a woman ? A. I don’t think the prisoner being a woman would make any difference. Q. Well, you think if you were sworn as a juror to try this ease that your mind on capital punishment is so unbiased that you can try the case on the evidence and render a verdict ac¬ cordingly ? Mr. MORRIS.- I submit the juror has fully answered. The COURT. — The question is ruled in. Q. It you were to be sworn as a juror on this case, is your mind so free on the subject of con¬ scientious scruples as to render a verdict in a capital case according to the testimony in the case ? A. I think I could. The juror was accepted and duly sworn. CHARLES R. BLOOMER called and sworn to challenge. Q. Where do you live? A. 61 Devoe street, Eastern District. Q. What is your business? A. Sash and blind factory. Q. Are you a married man. A. Yes. Challenge to the favor. Q. Have you any feeling or prejudice that would prevent you from rendering a fail- verdict in this case according to the evidence, and an impartial verdict so far as the accused is con¬ cerned ? Mr. BRITTON.—I object to the latter clause of the question. I don’t think it competent for the counsel on the other side to ask questions which the answer to calls for the nature of the bias. This question calls for the bias so far as the prisoner is concerned. The COURT.—Whether he can render a fair verdict ? Limit the question to that. Mr. MORRIS. —I suppose we can go farther than that in challenge to the favor. The ques¬ tion, as far as we are concerned, is whether the juror has a bias against the prisoner. Mr. BRITTON.—The rale of both principal cause and favor is as to whether the juror is biased. I don’t understand in either case the party may ask a question which calls for the ex¬ pression of the nature of the bias, if it exists, but only to ascertain if there is a bias. First, whether there is a legal bias, and, second, where the bias lies. In challenging for principal cause nobody ever thought of allowing a question of that nature. The COURT.—This is a challenge to the favor ? Mr. BRITTON.—Yes. Thej way I under¬ stand it is; there is no difference between principal cause and favor, except in one case ; the law says the juror is disqualified ; in the other case it is a question of fact whether there is any such bias ; but because it is for the favor the question is not whether it is favorable to or against the accused, whether to or against the people. Mr. MORRIS.—Suppose the juror expresses 12 an opinion against the party, would not we be at liberty 7 to prove that as challenge to the favor ? I have a right to ask him anything that goes to that question. Mr. BRITTON.— Counsel has a right to ask him whether he has an opinion ; and if he says he has not, it follows then that is the end of it; if he says he has, it matters not in whose favor. The COURT.—Let the question be an¬ swered. Mr. MORRIS.—Have you any bias or impres¬ sion, so far as the accused is concerned, that would prevent you from rendering an impartial verdict? A. No, sir. Challenge withdrawn. Mr. BRITTON.—Did you read an account of this about that period ? A. I cannot tell. Q. You don’t remember V A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever heard anybody talk about this case? A. I have. Q. How often have you had conversation or heard anybody talk about it? A. Never but once, and" that between myself and wife. Q. Did you ever express an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner ? A. I do not know that I have. Q. Did you have any opinion? A. I don’t think I did. Q. Have you any 7 now ? A. No, sir. Q. Have you any bias or prejudice in favor of the prisoner, which would prevent your ren¬ dering a verdict against her, if the evidence warranted it ? A. I have not. Q. Have you any conscientious scruples which would prevent your rendering a verdict ot guilty if the evidence warranted it, where the punish¬ ment following the judgment would be death ? A. I don’t understand that question. Q. Have you any conscientious scruples which would prevent your rendering a verdict of guilty in this case, this defendant being a female, if the evidence warranted it, the penalty being death? A. No, sir. Q. Have you any conscientious scruples on the subject of capital punishment? A. No, sir. Juror accepted and sworn. JOHN B. CREGIR called and sworn for challenge. Q. Where do you reside? A. 244 Rutger street. Q. Are you a married man ? A. Yes. Q Have you read any account of this case? A. I read an account at the time of the occur¬ rence. Q. Have you read nothing since? A. Noth¬ ing of any consequence. Challenge lo the favor. Q. Have you any bias, prejudice or impres¬ sions against the accused that would interfere with or prevent your rendering a verdict accord¬ ing to the evidence ? Mr. BRITTON. - Does the ruling of the Court in the other case go so far as this ? The COURT —Put your question in the form of the other question and it will be ruled in. A. I have an opinion. Q. You have no such opinion or prejudice as to interfere w r ith your rendering a verdict on tl evidence? A. No, sir. Mr. BRITTON.—Have you any feeling c prejudice in favor of the accused to prevei your rendering a verdict according to the test mony? A. No. Q.' No bias in your mind one way nor tl other? A. No, sir. Q No conscientious scruples against rendei ing a verdict of guilty where the punishment i death ? A. I have not. Challenge withdrawn. Mr. MORRIS.—Are you acquainted wit either of the parties? A. Not at all. Juror accepted and sworn. HENRY HEWITT called and sworn to cha lenge. Q. Where do you live? A. 295 Eighteen- Street. Q What is your business ? A. Q. Are you a married man ? A. Yes. Q. Did you read any account of this transf tion? A. Yes. Q. Have you read anything since ? A ho. Q. (To the favor)—Have you any opimc impression or feeling so far as the accused concerned that would interfere with or previ your rendering an impartial verdict according the evidence? A. No, sir. Challenge withdraxcn. By Mr. BRITTON.—Did you form an op ion when you read the account? A. All I opinion I formed or expressed I could not m ■ up my mind whether she was guilty or innoci Q 'Have you any conscientious scrap against finding a verdict of guilty in a cap case where the evidence warrants it? A ij sir. Juror accepted and sworn. CARREN C. CURTIS called and sworn r challenge. ___ _ Q. Where do you live ? A. 2<0 Henry stit, business is plumbing. Q. Are you a man of family ? A. I am. Q. Have you any feeling or impression, &■» as the accused is concerned, that would rw fere with your rendering a verdict accordn » the evidence? A. I have not. Challenge withdrawn. Mr. BRITTON.—Did I understand y< say you did read an account ? A. I rq •, general account, but not in detail. Q. Did you ever form any opinion subject of the guilt or innocence? A ho. Q. Is your mind unbiased? A. 1 thin* * Q. Not prejudiced for nor against? A. b| Q. Have you any conscientious sci» against rendering a verdict of guilty if uiffi deuce warrants it ? A. I have nob Juror accepted and sworn. HUGH ALLEN called and sworn foil Q. Where do you live? A. 89 Harris" Q. What is your business? A. rau lerchant. „ Q. You are a man of family? A. leb. 13 Q. Have you any opinion or impression gainst the accused that would prevent you om rendering an impartial verdict according ) the evidence ? A. I have none. Challenge withdrawn. Mr. BRITTON.—Have you any opinion or ias in favor of the accused which would pre- ait you rendering an impartial verdict, accord- ig to the evidence ? A. I have not. Q. Have you any conscientious scruples ;ainst rendering a verdict of guilty where the inishment is death ? A. No, sir. Q. Were you acquainted with either of these ixties? A. No, sir. Juror accepted and sworn. JAMES M. ROWAN called and sworn for allenge : Q. Where do you live ? A. 555 Pacific street. Q. Your business ? A. Nothing at present. Q. Have you any impression or prejudice, so • as the prisoner is concerned, that would in- Here with your rendering a verdict according I the evidence? A. I have no prejudice ;ainst the prisoner. Challenge withdrawn. Mr. BRITTON.—Have you any conscientious tuples against rendering a verdict of guilty f ere the penalty is death ? A. I have not. Juror accepted and sworn. r ACOB H. BROWN called and sworn to j.llenge : % Where do you live ? A. 212 Wilson street, j. What is your business ? A. Stationer, SY. |. Man of family ? A. Yes. (. Have you any prejudice or impression so ?£ as the defendant is concerned, that would ivent you rendering a verdict on the evi- i| ce ? A. I have not. I Did you read an account of this transac- 1 ? A. Some slight ; not much. ,. Did you hear it talked about? A. Not ih. . You did not form any opinion with ref¬ ugee to the guilt or innocence of the accused ? INo. . Have you any impression on that sub- ei? A. No, sir. ^ No impression in favor of the prisoner? Nor against? A. No. Have you any conscientious scruples ©' ist rendering a verdict of guilty where the >e: lty is death ? A. No, sir. < r or accepted and sworn. pHN R. DAYTON called and sworn for hijenge. * Where do you live? A. 356 Schermer- loi Street. t Business? A. Cotton. ( Family? A. Yes. ( Have you any impression or prejudice, so ar : the accused is concerned, that would in- er>e with your rendering an impartial verdict >n e evidence ? A. I have not. (illenge withdrawn. Mr. BRITTON. — Have you any conscien¬ tious scruples against rendering a verdict of guilty where the offence is punishable with death ? A. While the law remains the same, I have none. Juror accepted and sworn. ALFRED ARMSTRONG- called and sworn for challenge. Q. Where do you live ? A. 247 South North Street, Williamsburgh. Q. Were you acquainted with either of the parties? A. No, sir. Q. Your business ? A. Mason. Q. Have you a family? A. No, sir. Q. Did you read an account of this transac¬ tion ? A. No, sir, not a word. Q. Have you talked with any person on the subject? A. No, sir. Mr. BRITTON.—Have you any conscientious scruples as to rendering a verdict of guilty where the offence is punishable with death ? A. Not that I know of. Q. Have you any feeling or prejudice in favor of the prisoner in this case? A. No, sir. Juror accepted and sworn. [The foregoing relates to the examination of the jurors accepted. During the empanelling of the Jury, the People challenged peremptorily four jurors, and the prisoner nine.] The panel being full, the Court instructed them that on their separating during the trial they should hold no converse in the case, and then ordered a recess. -- OPENING ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTION. Mr. BRITTON.—If the Court please, and gentlemen of the jury :— My duty in this case is a simple one, and it will be, as it should be in my judgment, confined to a mere statement of facts which the people expect to prove in this case, stating the offense and its nature, which it is claimed has been committed. At the corner of First and South Eleventh streets, in this city, in the East¬ ern District, is a manufactory. That building is occupied by various persons. It is a place where motive or manufactur¬ ing power is rented on the several floors. At the time of this occurrence, the door which led to the factory was on South Eleventh street. On the third floor of the build¬ ing, which was divided into several rooms, was a room occupied by Mr. Watson, the 14 deceased, for the purpose of manufacturing hair nets. In his employment was a fore¬ woman of the establishment—who is*the person on trial here—and four otherpersons were likewise employed there at that time. This was the third story, as I have stated to you. The second floor was also used for various manufacturing establishments —one, two, or three, as the case may be— occupied for manufacturing purposes by other persons. The stairs, wh ch were the mode of exit from this building to South Eleventh street, were narrow and steep— there were two flights—one leading to the second, the other to the third story. The stairs down from the third story led to a little passage or floor; you walk around this and reach the head of the other flight —the one flight being directly over the other. During the course of the trial a diagram will be exhibited to you which will give you a clearer idea than I can of the premises, so far as the stairs are con¬ cerned. On the 26th day of January last, a little before twelve o’clock of that day, there was working in that room the defendant— who is a married woman, the deceased, who was the proprietor of the premises— a married man,—and three other females and one man, if I remember aright. At about ten minutes before twelve,—some¬ time between ten minutes and three min¬ utes before twelve,—Mr. Watson, the de¬ ceased, as was his custom, put on his over¬ coat and started to go to lunch or dinner. It was the custom at that establishment, as at many others, to blow the whistle or ring the bell at twelve o’clock, and it was Mr. Watson’s custom to leave the premises at a few minutes before twelve for tbe pur¬ pose of going to his dinner. On that day, in accordance with such usual custom, he put on a light overcoat—light in texture, not color—and started out of that room to go down stairs. Just before he left, which was three or four minutes before twelve, as near as I can ascertain, the defendant left this room and went out of that door. Where she was in the intermediate time perhaps the testimony will develop. I am not able now to state. It was a few mi utes at best. As he started to go dot those stairs, so far as we are able to jud from the circumstances of the case, he w shot. There is a hole through the windo Whether this was caused by this prison at the time, the trial may develop. At ai rate Mr. Watson was shot by a ball whi passed through his coat collar, struck 1 neck below the ear, and penetrated t head and brain so far as almost to rea the skull at the upper portion. Of cou this caused his death. The circumstam seem to show that he was shot when he i pretty well up stairs, and steep as ti were, and lined with iron as they were, rolled down these stairs, and when fj discovered by another than the person v • committed the deed, he lay at the foot i the stairs with his feet on the steps i( head and shoulders on the floor. A yot; girl who was tlmn working at the facte, and was accustomed to go out to gt a lunch at about this time, and bring it i) the premises to eat, left a few minutes v fore Watson left. She went about a b k and a half, bought the material for 4 lunch, immediately returned, occupyii » time not to exceed five minutes. On a return she first discovered Mr. Wa a lying in the condition I have descri tb At that time this defendant was there, her attention being called to this by a r- cumstance connected with the condui (I the defendant, she immediately raw into the room below and gave the ala. Afterwards she rushed up stairs consi bly excited. Others came out of the:* beloA, who will be examined here, tfl found Mr. Watson in the conditic is which I have described, the head 'm down and the face up. The first suii# was that he had fallen down stairs, bi <4 examination it was discovered that tbdk bullet had sped its way to his death, was on the floor and steps, and altiJg he was then breathing, he soon died. Now, gentlemen, about ten days tit weeks—I do not know the precise the testimony will show—before thjj currence, this defendant, with a yol 15 ther, went to a gunsmith’s in this city i purchased a pistol. On examining it, h a view to purchasing it, the question { asked this defendant, by her brother, jsther that would suit her. She assented, j pistol was purchased and they went ,y with it. Afterwards, and before this =th, the brother again called at this he and desired to exchange, complain- i or stating he did not know how to use ,and on its being explained by the Li ufacturer in what manner it could be 3 L, he went away satisfied. That was v or three days before this unfortunate slirrence. That pistol had on it a mark, o'of the manufacturer, but a peculiarity l is make which enabled the manufactu- ajjo identify it at the coroner’s inquest. : ort time after the killing, two or three u s afterwards, this defendant, with her Uiiand and brother, went to the Fifth rtinct police station, and brought with ifi this pistol which I have described to ai and surrendered it, and on a state- ici of the occurrences, this defendant mndered herself into custody. Now o these facts arise this trial. Iwould seem that the facts, as I have ad them to you, would constitute a la: case. Well, add to what I have rtdy stated, that the brother came out oa the room below at the time of this aw. being given by this young girl, step- d,cross the dead body of this man, the ifi dant being still there, and, showing it emotion, said to her, “ Fanny, I told >u|ot to do this,” to which she made no pi. Now, gentlemen, in stating these -'tin a simple way, I have given all eiis to this transaction, so far as the loJedge of the prosecution goes. It be- im us then, if these facts should be la isbed, as we are not all supposed to be peenced in the criminal law, to see ia find of an offence this is. its not all killing that is murder, as u 1 readily understand. In this State mure two degrees of murder—first and -o: L There are, likewise, resulting from In, certain degrees of manslaughter, acis an offence, as you all know, less in enormity than murder. There is like¬ wise known to the law, justifiable homicide and excusable homicide, wherein the cir¬ cumstances of the killing are of such a nature that the party who commits it is not held to be guilty of any offence. We have a statute on the subject of murder, and in order to have a fair understanding of that statute, it is proposed to look and see what murder is at common law ; and I propose to comment on this because you are unbiased and unprejudiced men, be¬ tween the people and the defendants, and desire to know the principles upon which you are to try the case. Murder at com¬ mon law is defined thus : “ Murder .—Where a person of sound memory and discretion unlawfully kills any responsible creature in the commonwealth, with malice prepense — (aforethought) — either express or implied. ” There are some words used in that defini¬ tion which have acquired, from long expe¬ rience and numerous decisions, a definite, technical meaning, by which juries, courts and counsel are bound. For instance, “Sound memory and discretion.” Of course you understand by that that the person must be a responsible being, and that he must not be laboring under such a disease as to impair his moral or mental faculties. If one is an irresponsible being, or under some hallucination, or under some disease which renders him irrespon¬ sible for his acts, of course it would be palpable injustice to punish him. “ With malice prepense.” The common sig¬ nificance of malice is some ill-will against the person. In common parlance, if you speak of a person having malice prepense, it would be conveyed to your mind that there had been some special ill-will against that person. But malice in law is not necessarily that. Malice in law is defined to be a wrongful act, done intentionally, without just cause or excuse. If a person should gr into a crowd and shoot into it, and kill any person there, you coirld not say in common parlance that the person had malice against the person who was hit; but it is malice in law, because it shows such a disposition of depravity as 16 the law would imply there was malice, whether there was especial personal malice or not. Now the statute defines murder in the first degree to be the killing of a human being from premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed, or of any human being. That premeditated design might be a design formed on the instant of killing, or auticipated for a longer pe¬ riod, but if intended before or at the time to produce death, then it is premeditated in the eye of the law. It don’t require any long-conceived purpose. Whether any such question will arise in this case I am not able to say. There are other defini¬ tions, but it is not probable they will arise in this case. I do not deem it proper to confuse your minds by farther definitions. I do not read the definition of murder in the second degree because, from my view of the case, the question will not arise. If it should, the law will be given to you by the Court or by counsel, as the circum¬ stances of the case demand. Now, gentlemen, the next point with reference to the matter is, what consti¬ tutes excusable or justifiable homicide, because, as I have stated to you, there are instances where a person is not crim¬ inal—legally, nor in sound common sense, for acts of homicide he commits. Ex¬ cusable homicide is where a man doing a lawful act, without any intent, by acci¬ dent kills another, as where a man is hunt¬ ing in a park and accidentally kills a per¬ son. Another phase of that kind of homi¬ cide is where it is done in self-defence. That don’t require any definition for you to understand. Justifiable homicide is where there is killing by unavoidable neces¬ sity without any will, intention, desire or neglect; likewise for the advance¬ ment of public justice, as where an officer performs an execution or something of that kind. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is that murder requires an intent to kill, and manslaugh¬ ter is where there is killing without intent. For instance: If one person strikes another with a blow of his fist, and it is clear that that blow produced death happening to strike in some partic spot, and it was free from any inten kill, that would not be murder; it w< be manslaughter. In a case where persons get into a quarrel and one gre provokes the other, strikes him blows arouses his passions, so that iD the hei: passion, impulsively, without any pren : tated design, without even thinking ' j would be the result, and, goaded od b; i acts of the person abusing him, he sfc s a blow with a knife or something that c duces death, the law in its benignity y that a man may be so treated and pr< a that he should not be held as guilty of j der, although he produced death w murderous weapon, if done under a circumstances. I do not propose t gi into any more definite or close defin oi with regard to manslaughter, becanl confess that, in no phase of the case il that question be likely to arise, but i should you will then be instructed as 1 i law. Standing here as a public officer, 1 re senting the people only, I come simj t perform a duty. I come here asycdo and will present this case to you as .el as I am able, without prejudice, wi on passion, without professional pride, itk out any thing improperly influenci) m in anything I may do. I trust yoiwil not consider it, if in the excitemd o words and the conflict of counsel, I s »ul< seem to show any zeal, and will att >nti it only to the excitement of the mo fa: I have no feeling in this matter <3epl that justice should be done to the jopb and the prisoner. It is not for me to say what the def seii in this case. I do not know what it: aaa if I did it would not be proper for n ben to state it. If it is a legal defense, id i it be proven, I can only say I tru yoa will render a verdict acquitting the ]iso»- er. If, on the other hand, it is not legll defense, and if it is not proven, cifl other words, you are satisfied after: hfl been interposed, that the peopld the test of ages ; they have been i lifted from time to time, as a higher eree of intelligence and a greater a unt of experience have required ; but utantially they have remained as they o are for a long period of years. If leircumstances of this case warrant it, a there is no defense known to the law st dished here before you, it will be your u to rebuke this mawkish sensibility hh seems to be pervading our society, n'which in many instances even leads n citizens to sympathize with crime, k only safe criterion is the old prin- p s. And if there should be developed ijmitigating circumstances which the wecognizes and which those principles ta I have suggested to you recognize, ai it where it belongs, where, in mir ad¬ miration of the Government we have itidy placed the pardoning power— ■ t| Governor of the State. He is given tat power with a view of meeting cases iiet there seem to be some circumstances ait. may, outside of sound, genuine,legal in pies, mitigate the offense. Whether es remarks have any application to this se do not know- I make them because e :ea niay suggest itself to your minds -0 the conclusion of the trial. In ll fairness I ask you simply to sus- u he law by your verdict; and if it t nout on this trial that this defendant 8 >mmitted this act, but that still, le the law, you can say by your rdi;; she may go scot-free; that it jm and right and proper that she ml thus go, no person shall be me satisfied than I. But if, on ' 0 er hand, it shall appear to you that i C'amitted this offense ; that she com- tte it without any palliating circum- nci known to the law which made it tifi >le ; that she committed it without ' 0 the circumstances known to the law that make it excusable ; that she was in sound mind and memory; and if it should still farther appear to you that she deliberately planned this attack, and placed herself purposely in a position with- view to commit this offense and kill th man, all defenceless and unarmed as ht was, I trust you will not, by your verdict, say that vengeance for any supposed per sonal wrong shall be taken into the hands of private persons. COMMENCEMENT OF TESTI¬ MONY. Dr. CREAMER, the first witness on the part of the prosecution, was called and did not ap¬ pear. Mr. MORRIS.—It may be that we can save some time. The defense admit that Mr. Watson, the deceased, came to his death from a pistol shot wound, inflicted on the 26th of January last at the hands of Fanny Hyde, and that-she was with her brother when the pistol was purchased from N. J. Stowell. These facts we make no question of; and as she admitted the fact-- Mr. BRITTON (interrupting).—Of course the facts and circumstances, in the case of mur¬ der, under which these acts were done, have to be shown. There can be no waiver of that. The COURT.—Do you say the admission is that she purchased the pistol? Mr. MORRIS.—She was with her brother when the pistol was purchased of Mr. Stowell; and we admit that Mr. Watson died from the effects of a pistol shot wound at the hands of Fanny Hyde. She went there with her brother for the purpose of getting this pistol. We make no point of that. Dr. CREAMER was again called, but did not appear. JAMES H. CORNWALL, Jr., called as a witness, but did not appear. ADMISSION by the defense of the diagram of the premises in question, put in by the pros¬ ecution. EUen Curley—Sworn for the Prose¬ cution. By Mr. BRITTON.—Where do you reside? A. No. 27 South Fifth street. Q. Where did you work on the 26th of last January? A. At the comer of South Eleventh and First streets. Q. For whom were you working there ? A. For Dexter & Devereux. Q. Did you know the deceased, Mr. Watson ? A. Yes. 18 Q. Who were in the premises where you were working that clay, say between 11 and 12 o'clock? A. Mr. Dexter and his wife, Mr. Watson, Mrs. Hyde and me. Q. Five in all? A. Yes; and a young girl named Mary Kelley. fi_ Q. At what time, if at all, did you leave these k e emises before noon ? A. Ten minutes to .velve. t Q. How do you know it was ten minutes to twelve ? A. I was in the room down stairs and saw what time it was by the clock. Q. What kind of an establishment was this ' where you worked ? A. Hair net manufactory. Q. At what hour did the bell ring in that fac¬ tory for closing work in the forenoon ? A. Twelve o’clock. Q. At the time you went out of those premi¬ ses, as you say, ten minutes to twelve, had that bell rung? A. No, sir. Q. What other signal was there which was given for closing in the forenoon, beside the bell ? A. There is no bell; it is a whistle. Q. You went out at ten minutes before twelve ? A. Yes. Q. Where did you go ? A. To Division Ave¬ nue. Q. About how far is that? A. Two blocks. Q. How long did you remain—did you go directly to that place ? A. Yes; after I went out of the shop down stairs. Q. How long did you remain there ? A. I was back before the whistle blew. Q. What did you do when you was there? A. I went to the store and back again. Q. What did you do to the store ? A. I went to get the things for my dinner. Q. You did not stay there and eat your din¬ ner? A. No, sir. Q. You took that back to the factory ? A. Yes. Q. You returned to the factory? A. Yes. Q. About how long do you think you was gone ? A. From seven to eight minutes. Q. Why do you think that? A. Because it was ten minutes to twelve when I left and I was back about three minutes before the whistle blew. Q. When you came back what first attracted your attention on the floor of the stairway—who did you see there? A. The only one I saw when I first went in was Mrs. Hyde standing at the head of the stairs. Q. What stairs ? A. The first flight, Q. What was she doing ? A. She was knock¬ ing at the door. Q. Anything else ? A. No, sir. Q. What next attracted your attention ? A. That was all. Q. Did you see the deceased ? A. No, sir, not at that time. Q. How soon after did you see the deceased ? A. Two minutes after. Q. What did you do between the time you came into the premises and the time you saw the deceased ? A. I knocked at the door. Q. What else? A. That was all. Q. Did anyone come out? A. Yes, but I could not recollect who it was. Q. Then after that you saw the deceased? A. Yes. Q. Where? A. At the foot of the se flight of stairs. Q. How was he lying ? A. Lying right a the foot of the stairs. Q. Then where did you go? A. I we: the flush room on the second floor. Q. Before you went into that flush roon anyone come out? No, sir; not as I seen. Q. Was any person there other than tb ceased lying on the floor and you and defen A. No, sir. Q. Before you went into that room ? A sir. Q. How long did you remain on that s floor room? A. Until after the whistle b Q. And then where did you go? j| stairs. Q. Did you hear the whistle blow ? A.: Q. When you went up stairs was del still in that place ? A. Yes. Q. Did you see anybody else there thei Yes; I saw Mrs. Hyde’s lather. Q. Anybody else? A. Air. Cox and JI ’ ley. I Q. Then you went up into the third 4 A. Yes. Q. Did you that forenoon before yoi A out see deceased and Mrs. Hyde ? A. Yi 1 Q. Where were they ? A. In the sami(| with me. Q. What doing? A. Working. Q. Near each other ? A. Yes. Q. How near ? A. At one table. Q. Working together ? A. Yes. Q. Did you see them conversing toge 3 all? A. Yes. Q. How did they appear towards each was there anything unusual in their appe me Objected to. The COURT. — Describe anything y< » Did you see anything different from w : y usually saw ? Objected to. The COURT. — She can state what there. Q. What did you see there ? A. I die anything at all ; all I could see was, I s ill working together all the morning. Q. Did you see them talking together « A. Yes. Q. Down to what time did you s; ti« there ? A. Down to ten minutes to tvW Q. The time you went out ? A. Yes, , Q. Was the machinery running till Yes. Q. How long had you been workiii tw A. I went there shortly after New work for Air. Dexter. Q. During that tune was Air. AVatsotlfl or most of the time ? A. Some of the roe Q. Was there any time in which Aid'* was accustomed to leave the premises T®5 whistle blow ? Objected to. . Offer by the prosecution to show tit the custom of the deceased to leave tlu ; *r at about the time he left on this day. The COURT.—Admitted so within the knowledge of this witness I Exception by the defense. A. He generally went at five minu i 19 SVliat time did lie generally come back, fore half-past twelve. Do you know of your own knowledge he was accustomed to go. A. No, sir. Do you know whether the defendant was imed to leave the premises or not at any |lar time before the whistle blew? A. No, Cross-examination. >!r. MORKIS.—I call your attention to [ rt of your examination before the Coro- ou was examined before the Coroner? will read this for the purpose of refresh¬ er memory—When you say you saw her Jrou returned to the stairs—“she was fig her hands she said to me, “ Go in- ip tell the men to come out, that Mr. \ was lying in the hall ’’—that’s correct, j'tion to any declarations of the defendant ti alleged killing. • IORRIS.—But they have proved what i —a part of it. Witness said that Mrs. Id her to go inside. . RITTON.—Not a word ; I did not ask j)rd on that subject. . [ORRIS.—Then what she said on that cjis stricken out ? e OURT.—I understand nothing of that i; n. • IORRIS.—Then, if that is stricken out, e o more questions to ask her. Q. Do you know whether he took one with him ? A. No, sir ; I did not see him. Q. Who left first ? A. Mrs. Hyde. Q. How long had Mrs. Hyde 'left the room bet ore Mr. Watson left. A. About three min, utes. Q. Did she put on any outside apparel before she went out. A. No, sir. Q. Do you know whether Mr. Watson had his hat on ? A. Yes, sir ; he had. Q. Do you know whether she had a hat on ? A. No, sir ; she had a shawl on around her shoulders. Q. Had she been wearing her shawl during the forenoon ? A. Yes. Q. Where did you next see these parties or any of them ? A. At twelve o’clock, when I was going to my dinner. Q. Did you leave the room before the whistle blew ? A. No, sir ; just as the whistle blew, I went out. Q. Where did you see Mr. Watson ? A. He was lying across the foot of the stairs. Q. Who did you see there when you came out? A. Mr. Pixley, Mr. Petty, Mr. Windley —Panny’s father. Q. Do you know her brother ? A. Yes. Q. Did you see him there ? A. No, sir. Q. What were they doing, any of them ? A. Just standing there ; Mr. Pixley was holding Mr. Watson’s head. Q. Was Mrs. Hyde there then ? A. No, sir ; she was up stairs. No cross-examination. Iary Ann Kelley — Sworn. Mere do you live ? A. 34 First street. Y.ere did you work on the 26th of Janu- t .e time of this occurrence ? A. South ii and First streets. 0 which floor of the building ? A. The fl r. V else worked there on that occasion ? r. Dexter and wife, Miss Curley, Mrs. Watson and myself. B you see Mr. Watson and Mrs. Hyde tk forenoon? A. Yes. Mat time ? They were there all the A up to ten minutes to twelve. Wit doing? A. Working at the same D you see anything occurring between hector word? No, sir. Di you see whether or not they conversed ici A. Yes, they conversed together. Di you know when the last witness went t room ? A. She went out about ten es i twelve. ihleft you there? A. Yes. He 1 long after that was it that Mr. Wat- jhj 3 *?° m '■ A. He went right after her. 'V t did he do preparatory to going out, aHjig on clothing ? A. Nothing at aR. Jo ou know whether he put on an over- *■ Not inside. Ayer Pixley — Sworn. Q. Where do you live ? A. 45 Hudson avenue. Q. Where were you engaged on the 26th of January? A. In the Merrill building, corner of South Eleventh and First streets: the factory. Q. You were in some manner related to the deceased? A. Yes ; I am his father-in-law. Q. On which floor were you working on the day of this occurrence ? A. I was on the second floor. Q. What first attracted your attention to it ? A. A knocking or kicking at the door. Q. Did you see who did it ? A. I opened the door and Ellen Curley came in. Q. Then what did you do ? A. I went direct¬ ly out in the hall and saw Mr. Watson there ; went through the passage-way around to the foot of the stairs and saw Mr. Watson. Q. Which stairs? A. The stairs leading from the second floor to the third floor. Q. State whether or not that was the position of the deceased on that diagram ? A. (.Witness pointing out.) That is the lower floor and that the second floor. He was across the foot of the stairs—these upper stairs. Q. What was the attitude ? A. He was lying on his back, his feet by the partition ; his head extended out beyond the stairs, his body against the riser of the first stairs. His body probably extended from about the elbow beyond the stairs. 20 Q. Who else was there ? A. At the time when I got there, there was no one but Fanny Hyde. Q. Where was she ? A. She stood opposite, beside his knees, two or three feet from him, bent forward, with her hand put to her fore¬ head, shading her eyes and looking at his face. Q. Who came there nest after that ? A. The first I recollect that came to render assistance, or anything of that kind, was Mr. Merrill. Q. What did you do when you discovered the body there first? A. I directly stooped down. I saw blood flowing, and put my hand over— Objected to on the ground of immateriality. Admitted. A. I placed my hand over where the blood was, with the intention of stopping the blood. Q. Did you find the wound ? A. The blood was streaming out of the side of the neck ; I put my hand over that, and I found the blood was still flowing like at the other side of the head—another wound where the blood was flowing still; I put my hand on to that. Q. Was the deceased then alive, or not? Did he show any indication of life ? A. I don t know of any sign of life, with the exception that under my hand I felt something throbbing. Mr. Merrill, who was standing by us, said— Q. Never mind what was said. Were you there when Dr. Creamer came ? A. I have no recollection of seeing him there. Q. Do you know the brother of Mrs. Hyde ? A. Yes. Q. Did you see him there on that occasion ? A. Yes. Q. Did you see where he came from ? A. He came from the direction of the head of the stairs ; I suppose from the flush room ; he must have come out from that floor or from up stairs. Q. When he came there was Mrs. Hyde there ? A. Yes. Q. What, if anything, did he say to her ? Mr. MORRIS.—Where was Mrs. Hyde? A. Still standing there in the same position I first described. Mr. BRITTON.—How far off from deceased was Mrs. Hyde ? A. From three to four feet. Q. Where was this brother ; where did he come from and what did he do ? A. He came out from that corner, and as he came out he put his hand up to the post at the foot of the stairs, he could not come up stairs without coming over Mr. Watson ; he put his hand out and.took hold of that post and swung around, and at the same time put the other hand up and says : ‘ ‘ Fanny, I told you not to do it. ” At the same time he put the other hand out and swung himself around over the body up stairs. Q. Did she make any reply? A. She did not, that I heard. Q. Do you know whether or not this was be¬ fore or after the whistle blew ? A. Before the whistle blew. Cross-examined. Mr. MORRIS.—I think, probably, we will save time by reserving the cross-examination of this witness until to-morrow ; we would like to have the right to reserve the cross-examination. Mr. BRITTON.—Does the Court in adjourn? The PRESIDING JUSTICE.—Not y« Mr. BRITTON.—I don’t know any why the cross-examination should be sus) Mr. MORRIS.—There are special reasc I desire it. The COURT.—If the witness shouli the court-room, Judge Morris may < him ; but if he should not be here, fl would leave the cross-examination. 1 under no obligation to bring him here purpose. Mr. MORRIS.—We will reserve hii examination until to-morrow. Mr. BRITTON.—I do not accept th sition that he shall be called by us to-n Margaret Man ie — Sworn , Mr. BRITTON to Mr. MORRIS.-1 any controversy as to whether this v before twelve o’clock ? Mr. MORRIS.—No. To WITNESS.—Where did you wo:I 26th of January? A. For Mrs. Hyde 1 Mr. Windlev. Q. What was his business? A. I manufacturer. Q. The same as Mr. Watson’s ? A. 1 Q. Where was that being conducted the third floor, rear part of the buildii Q. On the date of that occurrence see Mrs. Hyde in that room ? A. Yes Q. About what time? A. I won’t< tive. It might have been 11 o’clock, ! have been after—I can’t say. ij Q. How long did she remain there? - few minutes. Q. Did you see her brother at that I I could not say as he was there at that Q. Did you see him there that forei « Yes. Q. Did you see him go out? Objected to. Mr. BRITTON.—We want to set he went out before the occurrence. « proved him there and proved him on Objection sustained for the present! 1 No cross-examination. Kelson J. Stowell — Stan. Q. Your business ? A. Gun and xi Q. Was it in January? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever see that pistol ben ingonel? A. Yes. Q. Where was it in January? store, 86 Broadway. Q. Did you dispose of it? A. i Q. What were the circumstanc with the disposing of that pistol?w tleman and lady called at my pH gentleman asked me to show him sM I showed him this one, and he han a 3 asked her if it suited her; she said md he paid for it, and they walked out. I>w long did they stay there ? A. Ordi- ne—five to ten minutes. 'bat was said there? A. I could not fell jout how long before this occurrence A. About a week or a week and a half jreeks. here did you see that lady next ? A. I ' at Justice Voorhees’ court-room. [ you recognize her in the court-room l. Yes. (Pointing to the defendant.) i er that, where did you next see the ? A. I saw it there. Captain Woglom Ivn and fetched it with him. No cross-examination. I Cornelius Woglom — Sworn. fi are captain of the 5th Precinct Po- J Yes. ) you remember the day of this homi- I do. ) you see the prisoner on that day ? A. A ere? A. She came to the station- Vo with ? A. Her father and brother. Mat time of day was that ? A. Between bwo o’clock. V it occurred ? Did you see this pistol 13 A. Yes. V;re did you see it? A. Mr. Hyde 1 to me from his pocket. -1 re was a conversation? A. Yes. Lir that, what was done as to the pris- Wetook her name and pedigree, and lr up. kwas placed under arrest? A. Yes. was all that occurred? A. Yes, in- le; of what was said. r c kept this pistol ? A. Yes. V n this pistol came into your posses- is t loaded at all ? A. No, sir. 3 EAMER was again called as a wit- uwas not present. I STRICT ATTORNEY said he had tlr evidence ready to offer before Dr. a C irt then announced to the witnesses h des to be present at next morning at io . 8 nonished the jurors not to converse ai jonversation on the case during the n nt; and then adjourned until the ‘y -t ten a. m. —-- To SECOND DAY. ] ph Creamer, sivorn for Prosecution. the oi business? A. I am a physician, iol the position of surgeon of police. Q. Did you make the'post-mortem examination on the body of Mr. Watson in January last? A. Yes. Q. Where was it made ? A. In Brooklyn, at the house of his father-in-law. A. Describe what injuries you found on his person ? A. I found, on examination, some portions of the face and on the left eye-brow some skin removed, and on top of the head, a wound extending over the scalp some inch and a quarter ; it looked like an incised -wound. On the right side of the neck, posteriorly, at the back, a shot-wound. Q. What was the direction of the wound? A. Inward, upward and forward. Q. About where would it come out in that line of direction? A. It would have come out at the top of the head, (witness indicating the top and center.) By removing the scalp, I found the bullet imbedded in the substance of the brain. Q. Was the bullet about like that ? (showing.) A. That's the ball, as near as I can remember. Q. What was the nature of the other wounds and abrasions, and how would you think they were caused, supposing the person was shot on the stairway and fell down stairs? A. They were small abrasions, and might have been caused by falling. If by blows, they w'ould have been in a slanting direction, would have come downward, because the skin was merely contused. Q. The other wounds were abrasions, and might have been made by falling down stairs ? A. Yes, sir. It is quite possible they might have been caused in that way. Q. From what direction, in your judgment, must the shot that caused that wound have been fired, in relation to the party receiving the shot ? Mr. MORRIS.—I object to the question. He may state where it was located, the direction it entered, ilnd the course it took. Mr. BRITTON.—My question was what the direction of the wound indicated as to the position of the party firing the shot and of the party receiving the shot ? Mr. MORRIS.—Objected to. That is not a question calling for the opinion of an expert. He can state how the ball entered and the course ; but as to the position of the parties, the jury can judge as well as a physician. Q. If I understand you, the ball came in at the neck. Was the course of the ball direct or tortuous ? A. It was direct, upward and for¬ ward. It entered the neck behind the ear, and took an oblique direction upward and for¬ ward. Q. Did you discover, in your examination, whether the ball came in contact with anything that diverted it from its natural course which it had from the start. A. No, sir. Q. What was the cause of the death of Mr. Watson? A. The injury to the brain and spinal cord by this bullet. Q. How long after such a wound would a person be likely to live. A. A few minutes— eight to ten minutes. Q. Was there any other wound tending to cause death? A. No, sir. I found no other 22 cause of death. The only cause I can attribute would be the bullet. Cross-examined. Q. About how bill a man was Mr. Watson ? A. I am not a good judge of the size. He appeared to me to be a tall man. I should say five feet ten, or something like that. Q. Don't you thiuk he was a little taller than that ? A. He might have been. Q. Will you state the character of these abra¬ sions on the face ? A. They were abrasions. The skin was merely removed. There was one over the left eye ; a small portion of the skin was removed, and one down the face ; the skin from the lower portion of the nose, and an in¬ cised wound through the scalp. Q. What directions were these abrasions on the face ? A. They were downward. By a JUROR.—On which side of the head was this wound ? on the right or left ? A. On the right side. Mr. PIXLEY. —Recalled. Q. Did you have anything to do with the re¬ moval of the body from the factory ? A. Yes ; I helped carry it into the room. ' Q. Did he have an outer garment ? A. Yes. Q. What was that ? A. That s the garment (producing a spring-overcoat.) Q. 'Who took it off? A. The undertaker at my house. Q. Were you present? A. Yes. Offered for the purpose of showing a hole through the collar of the coat. Cross-examination. Q. How tall a man was Mr. Watson? A. Not quite as tall as I am. I am five feet nine ; he was about five feet seven or eight. Q. He was a taller man than you. A. No, sir. Q. I understood you to say that Mr. Merrill came there and was the first one you saw after you saw Mr. Watson lying there at the foot of the stairs ? A. The first I recollect. Q. Is that the likeness of Mr. Watson ? (show¬ ing a likeness of a man and two girls.) A. I should think it was. Q. Have you any doubt it. A. No, sir. Q. Can you say whether it is or not? A. To the best of my judgment it is. Q. You cannot be any more positive than that ? A. I don’t want to be any more positive than that, that when I tell you that according to the best of my judgment it is. Q. Can you state positively whether it is or not? A. If I could understand the necessity of it. I cannot understand the necessity. I have not any doubt of it. I give it as my opinion. Q. How long was it after you got to where Mr. Watson was before you saw Mr. Merrill there ? A. It was almost the same moment. Q. Did not some other parties come there ? A. Yes, shortly after. A great number came in the passage-way. Q. How soon after you got there was it before these other parties came ? A. I don't sup¬ pose it was a minute. Q. Who were there ? A. I could i tinctly recognize but two. I rememb Potts. Q. Who else can you recollect ? A no distinct recollection of anybody else the brother. Q. State the order in which you sav You saw Mr. Merrill first; where did Mr. Potts ? A. The next thing, I loo the hall was filled I looked up to Mr. He was in front of me. Then I tun called for water and looked around tl way, and the passage-way was filled 11 was among them. I would not be about any other one. Q. The first thing you did you took Mr. Watson’s head and raised it ? A. ] Q. What was the first thing you <1 Put my hand on the wound. I did c the head. Q. You put your hand on the wo saw Mr. Merrill, and then looked upw Mr. Potts, and the passage was filled then you called for water ? A. As I lc to call for water, I saw the passage- fiHed. Q. How long was it after you got tl you called for water. A. Not to minute. Q. Just as you took hold of him to hand on the wound, you looked up a for water? A. It was momentary. I have been within a minute. Q. How near was Mr. Merrill to yt Potts ? A. Mr. Merrill was so near i had hold of his head Mr. Merrill hat his hand, feeling of his pulse. Q. What was Mr. Potts at ? A. 1 know as he was doing anything mor come there, and, as I called for water i exertion to find it. Q. Who went to get the water ? I did not anybody get it. Q. What did Mr. Potts do after u for the water? A. I could not sat* did. Q. Who assisted you in removing 1 son ? A. Mr. Merrill. Q. "Who else ? A. I could not 1 p who was the other. Q. But there was some person e am not positive about that, but what Merrill and myself carried him some might have taken hold, but Merrill 1 principally carried. Q. You have no recollection whetlil else did assist or not ? A. I could n I tive whether they did or not Q. When you looked up to see thli did you see any ladies there ? A. I id lect of seeing any. Q. About how many do you thiij the hall-way ? A. Well, I could lg cause it would take about three fronl appeared to me to be a solid coin! About three could stand abreast Q. Were they standing abreast ? L Q. How near was the front one K you ? A. I should say about three ft Q. Were you excited at the time i1 28 f.’t know wliat I am to understand by Were you cool and calm? A. I was cool lm. [Were you confused? A. No, sir. I was > a remarkable degree for the occasion. Then you understood the question when •1 you if you was excited, you understand :;tinction between the two terms, to say as remarkably cool—more than ordina- r A. More than ordinary for such cir- nnces. fhat is a little indefinite. Can you state t it you were excited or confused ? A. I c know as I can give any better explana- it than I have. lave you ever been under such circum- c' before to know how parties act under ■ fs these? A. No. I-have never been these circumstances exactly. I have rties under some such circumstances. ’on’t you think you were a little excited ? i COURT.—Were you agitated in any de- ? A. I could not be otherwise than sorne- t gitated. r hat did Mr. Potts say to you ? A. If I li t anything that he said it was merely in u to the question, he said he could not a? water. id you go for the water. A. I could S8, I did not follow him. d you recollect of his making that re- c A. I think I do ; but at any rate there | water brought, consequently I con¬ ic hey could not get any. o you recollect any remark that any of >t rs made ? A. I do not particularly. Re-direct. 'hen you say you don’t recollect the re¬ ts lat either of the others made, do you 1 1 say you don’t recollect the remark made hbrother? A. No, I don’t mean to say a®. J lu do not mean to change your testi- f t to that? A. No, not at all. CHE PROSECUTION HERE RESTED. ] • .ORRIS, for the defendant here made a mor the court to instruct the jury that efidant is not called upon to make any stand said : t' Court please I respectfully submit e pt called upon in this case to make any sender the law. I submit to the Court he; is no proof of the first element of the c murder. I submit that they have not, -! 1 with, proved that Watson was killed «jisoner. RITTON.—In one respect I was mis- t iat I supposed to be the concession of el or the prisoner. I ask the Court to d tified this pistol and bullet, i )RRIS.—I don't see how the counsel at i his mind. We expressly repudiated it. : CRT.—The Court will give him that i 1 ITTON.—I believe I proved it by ln ^oglom. The pistol was delivered a y the prisoner’s husband, the three being together. We have proved that this was the ball taken from the deceased. The jury can determine whether the ball fits the pistol. Mr. MORRIS.—Now if the Court please, let us see where this case stands and wliat the District Attorney has proven. He has proven— Mr. BRITTON.—Wliat is the motion before the Court ? Mr. MORRIS.—I claim I am not called upon under the law to make any defense at all, and the Court must say so to the jury. Mr. BRITTON. —Then is the case closed ? Mr. MORRIS.—No, sir; the case is not closed. Mr. BRITTON. —He has no right to make any such request. There is no such practice as requesting the Court to charge the jury until the case is closed. The counsel must rest his case or go on with the evidence. The COURT.—As I understand the practice, he rests his case for the purpose of his motion. II the Court should not coincide with his view then he would have the right to go on with his testimony. Mr. BRITTON.—I never heard of such a practice in criminal cases. Perhaps I am wrong. Mr. MORRIS.—I will state it is a universal practice, a common practice, a proper practice, it the prosecution have proved nothing, if there is no evidence that would justify the jury in convicting, then the Court should say so' to the jury. Now I desire to present briefly my view r s with reference to that question. Now' what is this case ? The prisoner here is indicted for the crime of willful murder—murder in the first degree. In order to sustain this indictment the prosecution, in the first place, must prove be¬ yond a reasonable doubt that the accused kiUed the party alleged in the indictment. But w'hen they have proved this they have only taken the first step in proving the crime of murder. They must prove that that was done deliberately, that it w'as done with premeditation, that it was done with an intent existing at the time, to take his life. The mere fact of killing, it there is anything in this case from which that can be inferred, does not constitute the crime of mur¬ der, by any means. They have not in this case proved or attempted to prove that there was any motive whatever, lrom which an attempt to take life might be inferred. Assuming these facts would warrant the inference that the prisoner killed Mr. Watson, they have not proved any act connected w'ith the killing from which an intent to kill could be inferred. They have simply proven that she purchased this pis¬ tol, produced here, in company with her brother, or that her brother purchased the pistol and asked her it that would do, and she said yes, and that she went away, she and the brother with this pistol. From that day until the shooting, and from that day until this, there is not a particle of evidence in the case, that the pistol w'as ever in her jiossession, or her hands. They proved further in reference to the pistol, that it w'as given to Captain Woglom by the husband of the prisoner, so that after the pur¬ chase of the pistol they proved it next in pos¬ session of the husband. They don’t prove it in 24 her possession. They don’t prove a single ■word that was said there at the time they proved the purchase of the pistol. They show a homi¬ cide, and that shortly after the homicide the pistol was found in the hands of a third person. Now that is all the evidence there is in this case with reference to the pistol ; and what evi¬ dence is there outside of that. They prove that shortly after the shooting Fanny Hyde was out in the hall near this place. They prove by other witnesses that shortly after that the hall was packed full. This was in a public factory where there were a large number of employes. They prove a large number of people were there immediately after the transaction, and the pris¬ oner at the'bar is only one of the persons they have proved to have been there. Now what else have they proved? They proved by Mr. Pixley that the prisoner's brother came there and made the remark, waving the hand toward the prisoner, “I told you not to do this,” or some such remark. According to this testimony of Pixley the hall was crowded, and people were standing within three feet. Well, now suppose that is true ; assume that, have we got the mur¬ der yet? Have we got a murder? Provided the jury come to the conclusion that this evi¬ dence establishes the fact that she shot him, I ask where is there a particle of evidence here from which the jury can infer that she intended to take his life deliberately? Now the taking of life is not murder, by any means. Your honor recoil ects the case of the People, vs. M’Cann. In this case the killing was admitted. The burden is still, say the Court, “Is still the same, and it remains with the prosecution to show the existence of these requisite elements which constitute the crime of murder, and of these the intention or animus is the principal. ” Now I will admit, if the Court please, that there may be a case where the simple proof of the killing itself would justify the inference it was done with intent. For instance ; Your Honor sees two men standing at a distance. One de¬ liberately draws a revolver and shoots down the other. Now when they have proved that fact and the killing of the man, then the jury may infer it was done deliberately, and the accused is called upon to explain why it was done, and rebut that inference. But unless the evidence show's the killing to be done under circumstances that justify the inference that it was done with an intent to take life they have utterly failed to make out a case, and in this case they have no proof of any such killing at all. As¬ suming now, on this skeleton, this shadow of a case, that the jury may infer that fact. I say that don’t establish the circumstances under w’hich it was done, nor enable the jury to say it was done with intent to take life. They have shown no motive, nor the first element that goes to constitute the crime of murder. In overruling the chargejof the Court below it was said : “The doctrine of the charge proceeded on the idea that homicide is, per se. criminal, that the mere destruction of human life by the act of another is, without any other circumstances, murder or manslaughter.” Now' that was the charge of the Court below, and the Court of Ap¬ peals expressly repudiated it; it says the kill i n g was not enough, that we must go further t the proof 6hows the killing was done und< cumstances from which you might reaso: infer there w'as an interest to take life. Court said here that, ‘ every killing was inal per se. ’ Such is not Hie law. The cious purpose, the depravity of heart, the ficient understanding and the will must ever actually exist. They are, each of th( much the essence of crime as the act of k The jury must conscientiously believe th ist or else they cannot convict. The killin human being by another is not neces a murder or manslaughter ; it may be eitt cusable or justifiable, and may have be fected under either of those conditions rt to by elemental writers in w'hich the wil not join with the act, and then it is not crin Now I submit there is not enough h< this evidence, to convict. You have not nec&ssary element that goes to constitu crime of murder except the homicide itse any evidence that any one saw this, nor t cumstances under w'hich it was committe. the rule of law’ is that the party is presu: be innocent until proven guilty ; and I there is no evidence of the circumstances which it w’as committed, the law r assumes justifiable. The law draws the inferem this was justifiable. It would be overt all the principles of criminal law’ to i this a murder because the jury come to t! elusion, on this evidence, that this prisoi the killin g, although that is not proved suming that she did kill the deceased, wl is proven ? Although nobody saw her, al I nobody know's the circumstances that tra ' at the time this occurred ; although ther l motive proven at all, yet you infer that i it deliberately, intentionally, and is PI murder. The law don’t presume that, 1 1 a fully submit to the Court. Now I submit that under this evidel are not called upon to make any defei. the jury' should convict under this evident J Honor would set aside the verdict and ( new trial on the spot, without any su^l being made by counsel for the defense. ^ talk about hanging the accused on evio this kind! Why, if it was a case involv betw'een two citizens there is no jury in tendom would give a verdict on this in favor of the pai'ty claiming the monl this evidence there is no jury in Chrnfl would take $10 out of one man’s pots put it into another man’s pocket. On 4 dence you ask the life of this prisoner Hj taken. It cannot be done. When the I tion come into court and ask that the * this prisoner shall be yielded up, they shj the clearest, most indisputable and unmil right under the law to take that bloojj cannot guess people’s lives away; yo’X infer people’s lives away, unless uponfl tion that legally justifies the inference^ say in this case there is nothing but iiH and not evidence enough for an infereu B which a conviction can be urged. 1^1 fully submit, therefore, that we are nl B upon to make a defense in this case. 25 1 ■ COUBT to Mr. BBITTON. —Do you wish eke any remarks ? I BBITTON.—No, sir. f COUBT.—For the purposes of your da it is taken for granted that all matters suence are true. It appears from evidence t part of the prosecution that the prisoner, enpany with her brother—he officiating— K o a store and bought a pistol shortly be- ! jhis occurrence ; the brother handed it to id asked, “Will it suit you?” That pis- iithe pistol now produced in court; that xis the weapon handed to the Police Cap- 1 t the station-house within an hour or * ’ter the killing. It is also in evidence t the time of the killing of the deceased, d3r by his own hand or by the hand of some enerson, this prisoner stood there, fixedly, tag at him in the face, and her brother said le “I told you not to do it,” and she made rponse, so far as the testimony on that n is concerned. Now, under all these cir- isnces, it is not a case the Court can take njae jury. The Court thinks the jury are it I to pass on this question of the guilt or once. The prosecution are entitled to have o:) the jury for that purpose. The motion, ce re, is denied. TCourt then renewed its former caution hjurors, and took a recess for one hour. bCourt reconvened pursuant to adjourn- >HING ON THE PAHT OF THE DEFENSE. h. GATLIN.—If the Court please, 1 entlemen of the jury: t as a subject of serious consultation >i the gentlemen who are engaged in aiing the prisoner, in case the Court jl'd to overrule the motion made, 3t ?r this case should be submitted on ddence of the prosecution alone, or ■tar you should go into the entire and atters of the case. We have con¬ ic, gentlemen, to present this case to full, and to present the defense in cse as fully as we can. And gentle- a, vast and overwhelming as is the it confided to me, and the consequent jo abilities reposed on me, I meet them 'kly, with faith in the righteousness ot defense. Clothed in the armor of h nd justice, feeling that I stand on ife ; s i ; of right and humanity, believing t am defending your firesides and ie, 3our thresholds and mine, believing 11 ,m advocating innocence and virtue, c isequent domestic integrity, I enter on the part of this case assigned to me, not without oppressive anxiety, but with the entire approval of my own conscience and with that integrity of purpose that makes me feel strong, and confident of the result in your verdict. When I first heard of this case, before I knew of the facts,—before I knew any of the facts of the case as counsel—I did not believe that in the eye of God or of humani¬ ty this defendant had committed a crime. Before I knew any of the facts leading to this act, before I knew any of the circum¬ stances leading to this act, before I knew any of the previous history of this defend¬ ant, I did not believe —it was against every impulse of human nature to believe that this defendant, a woman of tender age, calmly, coolly, instigated by a depraved, wicked and malignant spirit, committed murder. I believed, and still believe, that it was the convulsion of a mind upon which great wrong, outrage and provocation had been heaped. I know, and you know, that in all convulsions in the material world some element of nature must have vent, or the sea and air and earth would be commingled in one indistinguishable, cha¬ otic mass; and so I believe the commission of this act was the result of some sudden, irresistible, overpowering impulse, some convulsion of the human mind as irresist¬ ible and uncontrollable as the decree of fate. And so it was, as we shall prove. True, she is charged with the crime of murder; but, as you have heard already, it is not every killing of a human being that is a crime. A crime is an act against the public rights; a crime is an act against the whole community—perpetrated against the whole community; and unless the kill¬ ing of a human being comes under this definition it may not be murder, it may not be a crime. True, the indictment is presented on behalf of the people. It is entitled “ The People against Fanny Hyde.” Gentlemen, I can show to you that, notwithstanding that indictment may have been properly found on ex parte evidence before the grand jury, that that indictment is false, it is a lie. The people of this country or of this State are not 26 tlie real prosecutors of Fanny Hyde. Why, gentlemen, the rule is inverted, and the people are the defendants in this case. Leave it to the spontaneous sentiments of the people of this city, the opinions of the mass, the 'whole community, and I believe they are all on the side of this defendant; and it is the disagreeable duty of the District Attorney and the family of the deceased Mr. Watson, to prosecute the case. And right here I want to say one word in praise—I want to pay one de¬ served tribute—to the District Attorney for one act which he has performed in this case. Private counsel—one of the most famous criminal lawyers in this or any other State—was employed by the friends of the deceased to help prosecute this de¬ fendant and help convict her and put a halter around her neck. A large retainer, $2,500, was paid to Mr. Charles S. Spen¬ cer, of New York, to help prosecute this case. It was expected be would take a leading and active part in the prosecution; but thanks to the keen appreciation of offi¬ cial propriety—not to say any thing of common decency—the District Attorney peremptorily refused to allow him to take any part in the case and help prosecute this defendant. I say all thanks to Mr. Britton for this act of common justice to this defendant. I will say further, there is one of your ablest and most honorable lawyers of the city of Brooklyn to whom a retainer of $150 or $200 was sent to help prosecute this case; all honor to that man for spurning that money and sending it back to Mr. Spencer, who sent it to him. But, gentlemen, does not that show a won¬ derful weakness in this prosecution some¬ where? Does not that show this Watson family must resort to some extraordinary effort to convict this girl, and thereby save, perhaps, the character and memory of the deceased? The District Attorney, as you have seen, does not want anybody to help him in this case. He is a man of large ability and great experience, and he does not want any outside counsel to help him try a case which official duty requires him to try. He is just entering upon his duty as District Attorney. It is not improbable he looks forward to some such an tunity as this to make a brilliant c of his official career. He said ye that he had no professional pride matter. I know it is impossible fo to occupy that position without professional pride as if he was counsel. It is perfectly consiste human nature that he should hav in this case, and desire to make an < that will surround him as a shiel were, all through his official care can say—“I may be defeated in soi of lesser importance, but I can | point to the case of ‘ The People i Hyde ’ with pride, and as a crown! rel in my official career. ” You ma i to see the usual case of the law offic ] ecuting a defendant for crime, tl i tion of all the ingenuity, the exil every power, the exercise of every j the exercise of every resource that j sesses, the same as if he were priva j sel. And, gentlemen, you will b » upon to stifle your emotions, sti.) nobler instincts and impulses in tl | and to sit there like statues or s marble, without hearts. Appeals made to you to look upon this d as a hardened wretch—as a Kuloff committed deliberate, cold-blood der for gain. Why, gentlemen (i were twelve professional adulterer aj of twelve honest husbands, if j twelve habitual libertines instead honorable fathers and brothers, i appeal could meet a response in ;ui soms. If you could look upon struction and ruin of a young gii age of this defendant with cooln s J indifference, then, perhaps, such ill would meet with a response in yoih If you w T ere twelve men hired by e to find a verdict of guilty; if twelve prosecutors, celebrated i utter heartlessness and want ol hi sympathy; if you were twelve e ers anxiously waiting for a victi whose neck you have fixed the you were twelve savages impatie ing for the scalp of a defenceless then such an appeal would not b I 27 ired response, and this trial would ockery. But, thank Heaven, you bands and fathers, and you cannot I is not right that you should—shut i'r nobler instincts: you should bring : exercise of this case every feeling rj faculty that God has given you. u e intellectual faculties, you have i; senses, and you have moral qual- y i should bring them all into oper- , deciding a case like this, of life lith. And gentlemen, when you yiir seats in the jury box in a n case like this, yon take your t ire with all the presumptions in o the accused. In every case you xsume the accused to be innocent nved guilty, much more must you v ere that poor, weak girl, with no s iE influence, no friends of wealth, tig for her life against the pros- g ower of the county of Kings, aye, vole State of New York, aided with valth of the family of the deceased, rt l, gentlemen, by the lackeys and :r which always hang about cor¬ al in the rooms of such a building . Why, gentlemen, I tell you what -|, he friends of the defendant have leged day and night and counsel ally been able to consult with wit- ffhout its being known outside. iv t have been sent to persons under isc of charity to get some confes- f this defendant. Snakes have there under the cloak of relig- enevolence, so that they could ‘ nelamaging statement of this poor )®' id tell you what I know, that with ■ oiaries and spies in jail it was im- elrme to get an interview with my iseii w a out being surprised with the iparition of some person who have been concealed to hear eke va: going on. Now, gentlemen, I t say in behalf of the District tw ;y hat I do not believe—I know he jjisHad in this whatever ; but I do feeir ® 8 ei .1 ai;ci|c, ilty'-l t, same power and the same 3 in; |e which secured able private l a a heavy price was at the bottom 0 stigation of this infamous sys¬ tem of espionage. Now, under these un¬ favorable circumstances under which we a,re laboring, under which this defendant enters on this trial, I ask you not to stifle your nobler and higher instincts and emo¬ tions, but listen to it like men, men inter¬ ested in the purity and in the existence of our social and domestic circle. Now, gen¬ tlemen, I come to this case. What has the prosecution proven ? Pre¬ cisely what we offered to admit, and did admit, until they rejected our offer, and what I propose to admit upon the thresh¬ old of my discussion in the case. I say I propose to admit all they have proven in the case, so far as I am concerned—that is, the buying of this pistol some time be¬ fore the shooting, the carrying of it on that day,—if you please,—and that George Wat¬ son received a fatal wound from that pis¬ tol in the hands of Fanny Hyde. I pro¬ pose for the sake of this opening, for the sake of this defense, to admit all of that in the beginning. But I do say that, not¬ withstanding we admit these facts, gentle¬ men, I preliminarily assert that we shall prove to you, and establish to your entire satisfaction, that no crime was committed in this act. The crime, as the counsel has started out in this case, must be murder. There can be no compromise on the middle ground of manslaughter. We stand here to defend this woman of the charge of murder. You must acquit her aud let her go free and untrammelled; there can be no compromise in the case. And, gen¬ tlemen, I must bring to your minds right here a suggestion that was made to you by the District Attorney, not an unusual nor uncommon suggestion made in the trial of murder. He says, if there is any doubt about this you can find your verdict of guilty and the Governor can pardon. Mr. BRITTON.—“ If there is any doubt !” I did not say that. Mr. CATLIN.—Gentlemen, that sug¬ gestion was made to you. Every gentle¬ man knew what the object of that was— that if there was any doubt in your minds you can find her guilty, and the Governor will pardon. Why, gentlemen, your prov¬ ince here is'higher than Governors, higher 28 than counsel, higher than district attor¬ neys, and higher than Courts, higher than Presidents. You are the men who are to determine what shall be done with this prisoner. We ask you not to be con¬ trolled or governed by any such monstrous suggestion or doctrine. We ask you to be men, and if you have any doubt in this case, that doubt goes to this defendant instead of against her, as the Court will in¬ struct you, and you will acquit her like men. Now, gentlemen, you have heard the crime of murder defined. It is the pre¬ meditated killing of a human being ; some plan must be laid. The old common law, the definition of which is sufficient for this case, is, that a man or a woman must be of sound mind and discretion, and un¬ lawfully kill a human being in the peace of the commonwealth, with malice and fore¬ thought. The constituent elements are, a sound mind, memory, and discretion. Second, the unlawful killing of a person who himself is obeying the law ; he must be in the peace of the commonwealth. Third, and at the bottom of the whole, there must be this malice aforethought. Now, gentlemen, in this case you must find that all these elements exist. They must be assumed or they must be proven ; but you must believe they conscientiously exist in this case. If one is absent, if there be not sound mind or memory in the case, or if the killing was justifiable, and not unlawful; if there was not malice in the case—that is, if the act was not done under circumstances showing symptoms of a de¬ praved heart, showing a wicked, deprav¬ ed and malignant spirit—you cannot con¬ vict. The elementary writers hold that there must be malicious purpose. Where do you find it in this case ? Depravity of heart—where do you find depravity of heart ? Each must exist, each is as much the essence of the crime and must be in the case as much as the killing. You can¬ not separate them and convict a man or woman of murder. Now, what have they proven ? Where have they proven one iota of malicious purpose in the case ? Have they assigned any motive or any cause for the commission of thi Have they done anything going that the defendant was an abandi son, in any way, shape or manne: they done anything that shows t: is depraved, debased, or malignan ing whatever. You cannot stan< and charge a woman with the murder without assigning some motive. Now what is the moth it because he would not pay her h It appears she was in his employ because there was any difficulty I them of an ordinary character- assign any such motive ? Certs no such motive could be assigns a person could not kill ianotht such reason ; you would say in she was not of a right mind bee I was no adequate motive nor a 1 for it ? People don’t commit n d such reasons. What was the m< I ask ? They will say, perha] revenge. Revenge for what ? .1 light break in on your minds ? ll the truth begin to dawn in this l their shadowy showing alread' you see enough in this casetd what a weight of grief must 1 < down upon this frail creature’1 heart; that this act was perpeba a weight of grief that could not t^< You, as husbands, fathers, br « conceive of no motive of reve;fli| defendant, if that is their tl)(| they must assume some theory < tfcl ing up ot the case. If th 1 theory—that this was reveui- husbands and fathers and bih see no motive of revenge except* honor, the loss of virtue, the lo« the loss of heaven; through th mi treachery of the man whom sh«ai influence of all these causes, s*« gentlemen, if you go home toij your daughter tells you that has ruined her, you will not rit stinct of your nature will not a to wait a moment until you hi> her dishonor in the blood of If And, if stung by her own d*H avenges that dishonor by heo* 29 ) place her crime in the category of ibded murder ? Why, gentlemen, sier very case if they say this was fi revenge ; and they must assume B 3 they have no case ; and they iw a motive unless it was for some- that kind. On their own show- ould not hesitate to submit this ) >u on the evidence now before you. show to you as clear a defense ise as ever shown in any similar e shall make it as plain as it can Ijoe made upon their own theory of wf sound mind and memory—on tfeory that this was committed q y—we shall show to you that »v; no crime, that this was justifi- 4 the morning of the commission . ft, we shall prove to you that the Lab left her workshop and went stirs to a retiring-room, and when if—the deceased following her out .i ely—she met deceased at the f Lie stairs, and when she went up ail reached the top he suddenly o her with violence, in an indecent r ad insisted upon her accompany - m an improper place ; and they it iggle there and she left the prints n Is upon his face, as we shall show i y reliable testimony. We shall ’c the scratches on his face were ry he defendant in this struggle. It iflbre struggle and she finally suc- : getting away. But he seized oh u and there it was, on this provoca- leuddenly seized a pistol and shot fc , gentlemen, if this be so, on their e:y of sanity, here her act was en- us liable, as the Court will instruct If his was as I have narrated—and te ou we shall prove every word of 1 1 1 have related it substantially, e as seized upon by this man at the f le stairs, insultingly, violently, in icent manner, she broke loose in leaving the print of her nails fa: ; that he seized upon her again, sn t was that she shot him—I say, e this—and we shall prove it— how on their own theory of a sound mind that she was justifiable, and no crime was committed. Why, gentlemen, the meanest worm that walks the earth in human form, the frailest thing that revels night and day in the meanest dens of in¬ famy, is mistress of her own body ; and the man who dares to lay violent hands on that body against her will, and attempts to use it against her will, and she kills him, she is justified in so doing, and so the Court will instruct you. But, 'gentlemen, if women must shoot men under these circumstances, men are in danger ! I reply that is the law under the statute, and I reply such men are in danger, and such men ought to be in dan¬ ger. Men whose base lust will spur them to such acts of violence are a disgrace to humanity, and their destruction by the victims of their lust is a proper doom. If we find a man deliberately igniting in his neighbor’s house an explosion that carries away his own, he has nobody to blame but himself. If a man administers intoxicat¬ ing poison to another, and that other, un¬ der the influence of that poison, rushes madly on him and takes his life, can it be said that is a murder ? If a man robs a woman of her virtue and inoculates her soul with the poison of guilt, and, under its influence, actuated by its power, she destroys the man who has caused this, who can say that she shall be found guilty of the crime of murder. So, I say, on their own theory, if we es¬ tablish this state of facts, you will not hesitate a moment in acquitting the defend¬ ant. But, in justice to this defendant, and to the cause of humanity, we will lay before you the line of our defense, to which we were just as irresistibly driven as was the bullet from which Mr. Watson received his fatal wound. We have conscientiously studied this case, and we know, and you shall know, and you must be prepared to hear a story of wrong and outrage that scarcely has a parallel in the history of the human race. We shall demonstrate to you, as clear as sunlight, that the defend¬ ant was no more responsible at the time of firing that shot than the pistol from which 30 it was fired. Her mind was stormed in its citadel, and laid prostrate under a stroke of frenzy. In former times the defense of insanity was looked upon with great disfavor, with suspicion and doubt ; so, in former times, the victims of this terrible malady were put to death as beset with devils, thrown into prisons, and beaten with great inhu¬ manity. To-day, in the light of the nine¬ teenth century, in this country and all over the civilized world, the victims of this terrible malady are treated with great con¬ sideration, and the defense of insanity, when set up as a defense of crime, is received not only with great consideration, but is entertained by the courts with tenderness and respect. In the progress of science the phenomena of the human mind has become a special branch of study. Men of great learning and ability have devoted their lives and energy to the multifarious operations of the human mind, and it is to their authority, and it is their evidence in such cases as this, that we are enabled to arrive at the truth, and we are enabled to save unaccountable beings from becoming victims of judicial murder. In this con¬ nection I desire to read some extracts from authorities going to show the danger of disregarding the plea of insanity when set up in any such case as this. On this sub¬ ject Chief Justice Parker, of New Hamp¬ shire, a few years since, in his charge to the Grand Jury, said : “ The public presses, in giving reports of trials, often say : ‘ The defense was, as usual, insanity,’ or make some other ex¬ pression indicating that this species of defense is resorted to in desperate cases for the purpose of aiding in the escape of criminals from justice. Such opinions are propagated in many instances by those whose feelings are too much enlisted, or whose ignorance respecting the subject is too great, to permit them to form an intelligent and dispassionate judg¬ ment; and they have a very perni¬ cious tendency, inasmuch as they excite prejudice in the public mind, and the un¬ fortunate individual, who is really entitled to the benefit of such a defense, is thereby sometimes deprived of a fair and impartial trial. Again, how irreverent and almost impious the taking of human life under such circumstances. Whom Gc visited man undertakes to judge ai with punishment, as if human reas deputed to revise the course of divi: idence.” Justice Edmonds, in th< Keim, tried for murder in 1846, charge to the jury, said that, “a the plea of insanity was some times i as a cloak for crime, it was unfor equally true that many more perse unjustly convicted and condemuei fer the punishment for crime, ti their unquestioned insanity ought been an unfailing protection.” The lamented Dr. Brigham, in t Annual Report of the Hartford says : “ I do not know of a single where the insanity of an individ been certified by those well inforr well qualified by experience with th to judge on such a subject, that t public opinion has decided to beii while I know many instances wl plea has been disregarded, which' shown ought not to have been.” Dr. Bell, Superintendent of the Asylum, near Boston, says: “ Tha' real criminal acquitted on the sco sanity, there have been a dozen executed. ” Dr. Woodward, Superintenden Insane Hospital at Worcester, M setts, says, in his Annual Report f “ It may be a consolation and an agement to jurors, in faithfully f out their own sincere convictioi law and evidence in such cases, j that in a pretty diligent inquiry e\ event in every case of homicide i England, where the accused has i defense of insanity set up for Ij been acquitted on that ground, it i found that not an instance has where the progress of time has ncj antly verified the soundness of tli*l —a fact which ought forever to si: thoughtless, but perhaps not inco tial intimations always presented! cases, that insanity is set up as th 1 sort of a desperate defense.” Now, gentlemen, after hearii| authorities of great and good ^ not well to listen to the mad ravini ignorant and unskilled against « 31 of such a defense as that set up i case. Now, that you may better ate and understand the facts of the : going to show insanity in the de- 1 , I desire to read to you some : of authority on that subject, and -ally on the subject of insanity, Las transitoria mania, or tempo- ilanity. I read from Dr. William :mond : Ire is a form of insanity, which, in 1 mating act is extremely temporary i.aracter, and which, in all its mani- iis, from beginning to end, is of Ration. b species of mental aberration is well d,o all physicians and medical jurists ii r e studied the subject of insanity. I authors it has been variously desig- is transitoria mania, ephemeral -temporary insanity and morbid ay be exhibited in the perceptional, l ual, emotional or volitional form, saeral mania. E exciting causes of temporary insan- numerous. It may be induced by 3 ienic influences, such as improper ;:posure to intense heat, cold, or csss, or to a noxious atmosphere ; L ie physical exercise, by disease of ijt, by blows upon the head or other • the body, by certain general and c Leases, by the abuse of alcoholic s by the ingestion of certain drugs, i opium, belladonna and hasheesh, l ssive intellectual occupation, by E leep, and above all, by great emo- i.sturbances. Among these latter : ii excitement, grief, disappoint- Etion, and especially anxiety, by ■ lie mind is kept continually on the b tortured by apprehensions, doubts i ;ertainties, by which it is worn r >re surely than by the most terri- aties. The predisposing causes are end in the individual as an inherent fiis organization. They consist in 3 tary tendency to insanity, or to c ler profound affection of the ner- 6 hem, or of an excitable nervous !] ment which is incapable of resist- ■ ( ' 3 morbid influences which persons Lgmatic disposition would easily ;; d. Thus all men are not affected ), disturbing causes, because all men >1 :ast in the same physical or mental 1 A circumstance which will pro- J anity in one person will scarcely t i equanimity of another. h immediate cause of temporary in¬ sanity is the disease itself, of which the mental aberration is simply the manifesta¬ tion. No fact in medical science is more elearly established than this of the action of the emotions over the circulation of the blood in the brain. This form of insanity is known as transitory mania. ‘ 1 It may be defined as a form of insanity in which the individual, with or without the exhibition of previous notable symptoms, and with or -without obvious exciting cause, suddenly loses the control of his will, during which period of non-control he commonly perpetrates a criminal act, and then as suddenly rec'overs, more or less completely, his power of volition. “Attentive examination will always re¬ veal the existence of symptoms precursory to the outbreak which constitutes the culminating act. Though they may be so slight as to escape superficial examination. ” Dr. A. Devergie, one of the most emi¬ nent alienists in France, in a paper read before the Imperial Academy of Medicine, entitled “ Transitory Homicidal Mania ; where does Reason End or Mania Begin,” in the Journal of Psychological Medicine and Mental Pathology, No. xvi, October, 1859, p. says : “ Those physicians who have devoted themselves to the treatment of insanity ad¬ mit that beside dementia, mania, andmono- omania, there exists an instantaneous, tran¬ sient insanity, which they call transitory, and as the result of which an individual, until then, in appearance at least, of sound mind, commits suddenly a homicidal act, and returns as suddenly to a state of reason. It would be easy to quote a hundred authors of recognized pre-eminence in psychologi¬ cal medicine, to the effect that such an affec¬ tion as temporary insanity really exists. The authorities on medical jurisprudence are likewise decided upon this point, and the fact is accepted every day by courts of law. It is unnecessary, therefore, to ad¬ duce further support to the doctrine. The emotions are also subject to insane exag¬ geration, through the influence of motives which act slowly, but with constantly in¬ creasing force. Thus a mother is affected with emotional insanity from the fact that her son or daughter has become dejjraved or criminal. She struggles against the consciousness that her hopes are blasted, but at last the intellect and the will yield, or settled melancholy predominates in all her thoughts, and she commits suicide, unable longer to bear up in the unequal conflict. Here there is no delusion, no error of judgment, but simply an inability 32 to apply her reasoning powers to the con¬ sideration of the subject, or to exercise her will against the overpowering emotion that renders her life a burden.” Now, gentlemen, it seems to me that these authorities establish the fact of the existence of a species of insanity, known as temporary insanity, impulsive insanity, or mania iransiloria, where an act is performed irresistibly and under uncontrollable influ¬ ences. Why, gentlemen, all see it every day. We can hardly look at a public journal but what we read of the melancholy death of some unfortunate individual by his own hand. No person has seen any¬ thing strange in his appearance, or unusual in his conduct, and he deliberately buys poison, or a pistol, and ends his life by his own hand, and all the world cries, “A case of temporary insanity,” and there is no doubt about it. If Fanny Hyde had died by her own hand, on that morning, insiead of having killed her evil genius ; if she, instead of Watson, had been picked up at the bottom of those stairs, the report would have been—“Died by her own hand in a fit of temporary insanity.” There would have been no question about buy¬ ing a pistol and carrying it two weeks. Everybody—physician and layman—would have said, “A case of temporary insanity.” “Insane, insane,” would have been the cry. There would have been no mistake about it. The coroner’s jury would have had a short sitting, and they would have returned a verdict of “Death from tempo¬ rary aberration of mind ; ” and if Watson’s relations to her had been understood, as they shall be understood, by you, all the world would have cried out : “ Kill him, kill the murderer and seducer of Fanny Hyde.” Brooklyn would be too hot for him. There would have been no doubt about her insanity, there would be no doubt about her temporary aberration of mind. Men would not have quibbled about her buying a pistol two or three weeks before and her carrying it that morning. They would have said that she died while temporarily laboring under in¬ sanity. Now, gentlemen, I say that, in this case, the act itself is the best and clearest evidence of insanity, and on | might read to you authorities shd where there is no other evidence, t itself is the best evidence that the m the person was unsound. Have they proved a particle of ma! purpose toward the deceased ? No. they wish us to account for the pu and carrying of the pistol. On the ing of this occurrence, the condi Fanny Hyde was notably strange looked wildly, stared vacantly, a great distress she cried out—“ Oh, I was dead.” On that morning thj prove no malice, no word, no against Watson. So I can argue and to this Court, that we have I reason to suppose that she bouglj pistol and had it that morning f I pui-pose of self-murder, than the} j that she carried it for the purpose < ing Watson, from the probabilities' case. It was in a public place, in l daylight, in the middle of the dad public hall-way, opening upon an lie street, that this act was comil Now, I ask you if that is th \ murderers generally do business ? W J show to you—and they came ver« showing it to you by one of their la 1 nesses—that at the bottom of thesdi this defendant was over the corpse c J son, wringing her hands in great t Do criminals have that emotion wlb premeditated murder ? Women wi ll malice in their hearts—is that the w: i usually do ? Do criminals delib )1 walk to their constituted authoriti I deliver themselves up, and the instil with which they perpetrated the act ' murderers do that ? That is jus! they don’t do. And I may say riglb| that the evidence is that this pisl ' bought two or three weeks befo I commission of the act. There were b dred opportunities in which she con b shot him ; places better protecte I places murderers more likely woul I chosen. Why, gentlemen, there isoj element in this case but shows thj theory of the defense is the true oi»( that this woman, at the time she c n 33 lihat deed, was entirely irresponsible, dannot be convicted of crime. At any jt if you have any doubt about it, that ut must be construed in favor of the f( dant. We think we can prove by r;3stimony, as clear as can be, that the ft dant was insane at the time ; but if ngs up to our minds the most delight- r niniscences. What a world of music ii that word! What forms of poetry i that word ! “ Motherless !” What urast! It turns light into darkness ; :fco sadness. What a dark, gloomy ej it has ; a cold, skeleton sound, that o: and re-echoes through the cham- sf the heart like the hollow resonance tl tomb. In that one word is Fanny do fate. If that sainted mother, that d earted mother had lived, Fanny di would not have been on trial for her 1-day. She would have been edu- 3c to avoid the adulterer; her tender irtand mind would have been disci- ie to have saved her from the wiles and tc :ry of the seducer. At ten years of f e came to this country and com- acl working in a factory, and, of k after that she had very little time D ntal culture ; yet, so anxious was t< oecome educated and become intel- n she actually attended night school, ade commendable progress. She nt to Sunday School and went to and was noticed for her progress P'priety of conduct. We shall divide > ^ ir< the history of Fanny Hyde in two chap¬ ters. The first covers that part of her life prior to her acquaintance with Watson, and the other, after her acquaintance with Watson. We shall trace her day by day, night by night, week by week, year by year, up to the time she became acquainted with Watson. The first will be a bright and beautiful chapter, and the second begins in gloom and ends in darkness. Full of nerve, quick, active, of rather an impatient temperament, we shall show to you she was one of the most affectionate and lov¬ ing of natures. She had a pure and very affectionate heart. She was very fond of children, and never was so happy as when affectionately caressing them. She never was permitted to, and never did receive the company of young men ; she never was permitted to go out. We can show to you, by whole families who have known her for months and years, with whom she has lived, that up to the time she made the acquaintance of Watson she was pure, she was chaste, she was anything that could be desired in a girl of her age. We shall show to you that she was a young girl of great industry, and so thorough and atten¬ tive to her business that she became marked in her vocation. She had no equal. We shall show to you by her Sunday School teacher and superintendent, who are here and knew her for a long time, and who I believe is superintendent of the same school now that she attended before she knew this man Watson, and, in fact, some time after, we shall show by these parties that she at¬ tracted attention for her propriety of con¬ duct. She was everything that was attrac¬ tive in a young, pure, virtuous female. Gentlemen, so far you don’t see anything of the murderer or anything of which murder is made. But, gentlemen, now begins the second chapter, dark and painful. I almost trem¬ ble when I think of it. I am filled, gen¬ tlemen, knowing it as I do, with the most fearful and painful emotions. I almost falter in my professional duty here when I am compelled to speak of it. It was a sad, it was a terrible chapter in her life, as we shall show to you. At the age of fifteen 34 years she ■went to work for Watson, a pure girl—a pure, virtuous girl. In less than six months she was ruined and destroyed— so far as she could be by the loss of virtue. You will hear of a sin more damning, a scene of outrage greater than any you have ever heard of or read of. At that time Fanny Hyde was just budding into lovely maidenhood. She was as fair and comely to look upon as any of her sex; round, rosy cheeks, full symmetrical form, in voice, manner, conduct, shape—every¬ thing that could be desired in one of her years was she. She attracted attention by those charms, and Watson was not slow to see them. He looked upon her with libid¬ inous heart and lustful desire. Among all his female employees Fanny Hyde was the fairest. She was the one he determined to make his victim, and the cream, perhaps, of his harem. He watched his opportunity and one day he found her in the shop alone: and there they were, the motherless victim, and Watson together. And right here I desire on the part of my associates and the defendant and myself to disclaim any desire to blacken the character or the memory of Mr. Watson, any more than as he is an important fact in the case. Much less do we desire to add one single pang to his already terribly afflicted wife and chil¬ dren. They have been afflicted by a severe dispensation and we do not desire to say one word that will injure them or their feelings. If we could go to them to-day and break iu on their private anguish and ask them whether they most mourn for the death or loss of character, and they will tell you they would rather have seen him die a thousand deaths by bullet or disease than to see him die at the hands of an out¬ raged woman whom he had ruined and persecuted. “Oh, we could have drank the cup if more than bitterness were not at the bottom.” But there, locked in that room, he ac¬ complished his purpose; he left the poison of his teeth and the slime of his trail. He planted a seed that brought forth its legiti¬ mate fruit two years afterward on this fatal day in January, 1872. He robbed her of that jewel of every woman—her virtue, and innoculated her soul with the poi a ous fires of guilt. Oh, gentlemen, no ’ i der that darkness covered the earth t<| Ihe voice of the Lord was heard in it garden in the morning ; no wonder the u turned to a great ball of blood, when ?t heeded the voice of the devil. No wo a the skeletons of the charred bones grii id when Zelica, amid the flames of deca if mortality and the flickering death hiti around her soul when she took the (i oath, in hell’s own language framei t< be the bride of the great Mokana, kt Prophet Chief, that when she had ne to reflect on the horror of the deedoii begun to struggle with her soul, .a' reason was dethroned and she dieitoj her own hand. Will some cynical, 1 rt- less wretch say to himself “ Why did in- ny Hyde submit, why did she not is: to the bitter end ? ” Why, gentle ;n, angels have fallen. Here was wealth, si- tion, age and power, battling on its ,wii foot stool with a young, timid, half f ht- ened girl. Why, the relation of mastt in. servant existed, which made itmuch ore easy for him to accomplish his piu wby what process your minds arrive at It conclusion. That weighs a ton in this ! is. We shall show to you that through 1 1 criminalintimacy she became pregnant, il shall show to you that he furnished her o Heine and drugs which brought on her oistrual period. We shall show to you h from that time her health began to fail, ra that time her color, which was a uminent characteristic in her, began to a ;; her body began to diminish, and we bl show that about fifteen months after b time he seduced her, she met this young m, Hyde, and after a short court-ship a riedhim. Here was a crisis. She had u 1 honestly, she had tried with all her 'Cer, she had to overcome her slavish ofition and leave this man, but she was ible to do it, as you can well understand, n of observation, intelligence and expe- uce. But here was a crisis. Here was cance for a new departure. She had n nderstanding with that man, Watson, i'Ci that time that he should leave her to e husband to spend the residue of her f' in fidelity to him and herself; and he uhis hand on the Bible deliberately and we that he never would molest her g:i. But to a man who would puH vir- «down, an oath had no sanctity. The ufcity of the marriage relation had not Q< gh in it to prevent him from gratify- lgiislust; and by the same old power— 01 ca n understand it—and by threats of S I sore, he accomplished his purpose g£i after that marriage. She so brooded ve ; it, it so affected her mind that she ns f :y unbosomed herself to her husband—- >1< him about it. They confronted this idler and he begged for the sake of his wife and children that the occasic pass by; and again he swore that would molest her more. But a tlemen, by the same power, by old influence, by reminding he past, that he held her reputatic end of his tongue, and could blast world as he already had blasted it to C again accomplished his object. Do some one say, “ Why should she stay and permit this to be done ?” Go yonder gilded palaces of hell, where fairest of onr land are sacrificed ; go in the rural charnel houses, filled with tht skeletons of the lost souls of creatures ; speak to one of those frail creatures; ask her why she came there and why she don’t leave ; and then, if your question is not answered, I don’t know how to answer it. But I will tell you, gentlemen, it was be¬ cause he threatened to go wherever she went; because he threatened to ruin her reputation. Her parents and relatives, although poor, were respectable ; and, with the exception of her husband and this man Watson, she was respectable and respected by all. It was for this, among other reasons, that she did not leave him. Gentlemen, conscience was at work. She brooded over her misfortunes. She brooded over her condition of servitude to this man until her life actually became too heavy for her to bear. She became re¬ duced in body. She fell away from 125 to 95 pounds. Her nervous system was bro¬ ken down, and on three years of accumu¬ lating horrors, with ail of these three dis¬ posing causes weighing down on her mind, her soul, her heart, is it any wonder that on the morning of this occurrence she stared wildly, she looked vacantly, that she said, standing by the stove, “I wish I was dead ?” Is it a wonder that she contem¬ plated self-destruction on that morning? Why, gentlemen, if girls disappointed in their affections commit suicide, if quiet, orderly men who meet with reverses in business brood over those losses until their minds become overturned and they take their own lives, if Preston King, rolling in luxury and wealth, occupying a high position—Collector of the Port of New 36 mid be so overcome by political \at be should drown himself in •iver under temporary insanity, lous, is it strange, that this poor , laboring under those untold joining in contact with the author liseries on that morning under the .ances that we shall prove to you— /onder that reason should have left >ne and that she should have strick- own the author of those miseries woes ? In addition to these predis- ;sing causes, we shall show to you that he has hereditary insanity : her grand¬ father died insane, committed suicide while insane. On that question I desire to read from Marc. Yol. 1, page 285: “ Hereditary predisposition deserves to be placed at the head of the causes of in¬ sanity, for it plays so marked a character in the production of this malady that whenever there is a possibility, in a medi¬ co-legal investigation, of demonstrating its existence, it is sufficient almost of itself to establish the reality of a lesion of the understanding, or to weaken considerably the possibility of its being feigned.” We shall show to you that the grand¬ father of this defendant died while under the influence of temporary insanity. We shall introduce witnesses to show to you— men who are experienced in detecting and considering insanity; we shall show to you that on this morning the defendant was insane, therefore not responsible for what she committed. We shall also show an¬ other important fact illustrating causes leading to this act. Her periods of men¬ struation are epochs in her life, almost up¬ setting her, they are so severe. We will show to you that that is a very strong and powerfully predisposing cause to this in¬ sanity. Now, gentlemen, in my investiga¬ tions of the disease of the mind, in my study of the authorities and cases on the question, I have been unable to find one so perfectly clear in my mind as this. And, gentlemen, that you may see for yourselves that this is a clear case, com¬ pared with other cases where this plea has been set up successfully, I desire to call your attention to one or two cases. In the case of Amelia Norman, indie for stabbing her seducer, the jury i dered a verdict of acquittal after an sence of only two minutes. In this < the evidence showed an apparent prem tation and purpose—namely, the delil ate lying in wait for her victim, and the evidences of thorough design and tent, and yet the jury said she was i sponsible. The case of Sickles, who killed the ducer of his wife, is still fresh in y minds. In this case no medical evide at all was introduced ; and yet he was quitted on the ground of temporary sanity. Gen. Cole, who killed Hiscock, prepa himself with a pistol in Syracuse, went Albany on purpose, and met this sedi —met him at the Delavan House, pu out his pistol and shot him. He promptly acquitted. In the case of Pierce, who shot the ducer of his sister, which was a sim case, the jury rendered a verdict of quittal on the ground of irresponsibilil Mary Harris killed Burroughs, who violated his promise to her of marriage, conduct leading to the act looked like of one preparing to commit murder, was acquitted on the defence of tempo insanity ; and subsequent events just the propriety of the plea, for to-day si a confirmed maniac. And these are a few in hundreds of c where this defence has been set up w l the facts have not been nearly so stroll in this case. Now, gentlemen, the charity of our i ute permits the defendant to be a witj in her own behalf. She will go on hi stand and tell her own story. It will II terrible ordeal to her. Why, grave, i wart, robust men—men who daily bM with the world, in going on the wit* stand sometimes glow weak and falter.nl sometimes even faint where but a few HI dred dollars are at stake. But here ishi young, timid girl. What must bell emotions, what must be her feelings v« she takes her place on the witness-sft# But the other day a nobleman in EnjJ* 37 its accosted by one of these scientific intleman, known as “ blackmailers,” and i,s informed that his wife was a woman : bad character before he married her, id demanded money or he would ■tke an expose. The nobleman prompt- spurned the threat and the au- |»r of it. It was the occasion of a suit I: malicious libel. On that trial Lady Iriss, who was the lady spoken of, was it on the stand as a witness and subject ; very severe cross-examination. The iiits and circumstances are so well stated ■: The New York Times of a recent date iiit, with the permission of the Court, I a read it : ‘During the trial of the Turiss libel i t witnesses were produced to prove the ier falsity of Choffer’s charges, while it vs also proved that he had attempted to )be witnesses in his defense. No one hbted that the verdict would completely r dicate the aspersed character of Lady iriss, when the case was suddenly ter- nated by her flight from London and the l.continuance of the prosecution. The ) y intelligent interpretation of her dis- oearance is that she was totally unable i< sustain the torture of a cruel examina- fa. to which she was subjected. It can siily be understood that to a sensitive, idy organized nature, nothing could inn worse than the prospects of under- ;'ng, in open Court, the subtle cruelty of i mg-continued and remorseless 6ross-ex- irination. The man Choffers, who is an ibmey, conducted his own defense, and ling the first examination of Lady iriss, subjected her to what the Spectator its the “torture of filthy questions” for Its. She passed the ordeal bravely ; but 1 certainty of its renewal may easily ire filled her with such horror that she iiferred to risk the misconstruction -which wild be put on her flight. The torture ilihe examination to which she must be tjected, cannot be comprehended except >;the victim herself, which, in spite of 1 verdict which proclaimed her unsullied Iracter, the mud of the trial through r ch she had been dragged will still cling, d , manner, to her garments, and she will Lie gained a notoriety horribly painful o, modest woman. ” off, gentleman, here is a woman of lii rank and noble birth, charged with a p|.tof chastity. That she should be over- c.e and reason dethroned rather than a objected to a cross-examination, what must be the condition of this defendant, charged with murder ? To go on that stand and tell her story will be an ordeal almost unendurable. The District At¬ torney has in store for her the rack and torture in his cross-examination. We may expect to see her writhe and groan, per¬ haps sink; but I trust she may bear bravely up. I hope that God, the friend of the friendless, will sustain her in this great trial; for I believe that God is on her side. Her days and nights in prison have not been all dark and dreary ; there has been one light streaming in on her, it has filled her soul with joy and gladness—her Bible ; it has been her constant companion. Religion has been her daily reliance ; and every night and every morning, on bended knees and with clasped hands she pours her soul in prayer to God. Ah, gentlemen, when the soul is full, when thoughts come struggling up for utterance, there is to be found relief in prayer. Without money and without price, I have devoted a few days with affectionate energy to this case. I do not permit my¬ self for a moment to think that your ver¬ dict will be any other than an entire acquittal. If you have any doubt, that doubt goes to the defendant. Remember the awful responsibility of convicting this defendant if she was insane. Remember, too, we are in awful times. The founda¬ tions of our social and domestic systems are wavering. Remember that the poison and mildew of licentiousness are corrupting the heart of society. The fairest of our land are yearly falling into the snares of the Watsons and other monsters of society. Remember that the polished libertine and gross sensualist, with bloodshot eyes, alike stand leering across our thresholds. God has reiterated in His Holy Book that the adulterous shall not live. Remember the commandment. Thou shalt not commit adultery, and thou shalt not kill, stand side by side. Through this man this young girl lost her virtue—the gem -which is the honor and glory of every woman. Through him she lost her honor and self-respect, through him she lost her peace and health, through him she lost her reputation, 38 through him she has lost everything near and dear, and for him you say that she shall meet the death of the murderer ? There is one piece of evidence I desire particularly to call your attention to, it is an open volume, it is evidence that you can see and read. If when you go into this jury room you have any doubt about this case, I pray you, gentlemen, as you love your homes, as good hus¬ bands, fathers, and brothers, to turn your eyes and your minds and thoughts to this poor girl — to the pale, sweet, innocent face, and to the frail, feeble, attenuated body of Fanny Hyde, and then it seems to me the verdict will in¬ voluntarily tremble from your lips—Not guilty. If you pronounce such a verdict, how gladly will you be embraced by father, mother, brother, sister ; and how happy will you be in the consciousness that you have brought gladness to them—what none but they can appreciate. But how dark, dismal and gloomy will be your thoughts, how delirious will be your sleep, if you pronounce your verdict that shall bow down this family more than they are bowed down, and shall send them out of this Court a broken, wrecked and ruined fam¬ ily ; one to go back to her prison den, the others to go to a darkened threshold, to a home ruined—a family of agony, of wailing and of tears. - - — TESTIMONY FOR THE DEFEND¬ ANT. Howard Daisely — Sworn. By Mr. MORRIS.—Where do you reside? A. 236 Bridge Street. Q. What is your business ? A. Stone dealer. Q. Where is your place of business ? A. 61 Fulton Street. Q. Do you know the accused in this case, Fanny Hyde ? A. Yes. Q. How long have you known her? A. Four years, or thereabouts/' or a little over. Q. Where did you first become acquainted with her ? A. She came to the Sunday School with which I was connected, as a scholar in that school. Q. What school was it ? A. The Bridge street Primitive Methodist Sunday School. Q. About what time was it that she first came there ? A. I know she was there in January, 1868, possibly a week or two prior to that ti 1 Q. How long did she attend your Sui j School? A. For about two years. Q. What was her attendance, regular or ot wise ? A. Generally regular. Q. Do you know where she lived at that t during that period ? A. The first part of « time I do not, but the latter part of the time < lived in Williamsburgh. Q. Up to what time did she attend sch 1 When did she leave ? A. She left the scho ] think, it was somewhere in May, 1870. Q. Do you know whether that was befor >i after her marriage ? A. It was just prior to i marriage ; her name was not taken off the b i until after her marriage. Q. What was her conduct during the pe j the school ? A. Yes ; she was chosen to a part in the exhibitions as a speaker. Q. Do you know Mr. Watson ? A. I c ’) know him by the name of Mr. Watson. Q. State whether you can recognize a| photograph? A. Yes ; I recognize the c<« figure as a gentleman whom I have seen. Q. Where did you see him ? A. I have H him at the last exhibition we had at the Su: School. Q. Was that exhibition in the evening oi ij time ? A. In the evening. Q. Do you know whether he was acquai “d with Mrs. Hyde at that time or not? A lo farther than a circumstance that occurrt«| that exhibition ; that is all I know of their l lg acquainted. Q. What was that circumstance ? Objected to as immaterial and irreleva; to this trial—a transaction that occurred somf ae between 1868 and 1870 at a Sunday School Mr. MORRIS. —The object of the que m is to show the relation of the parties. The COURT.—Do .you claim it to be le¬ vant? Mr. MORRIS.—Yes. Mr. BRITTON.—Now, if the Court pie: If I understood the opening of the defense^ ha nature of the defence reduced to a formula, to several formulas was—first, that there was «• lision between these two parties on the occ.lcm of this killing, and some circumstances ol io- lence on the part of deceased toward the ps- oner, which justified her in taking his li -I understand that to have been one of the p m>- sitioms in the opening of the case. Of cosu so far as that proposition was concerned his question would be wholly irrelevant and in m- petent here. I understand the other pro si- tion to be, reduced to fewer words : that Iris prisoner at the time of killing, was insane jt designate this as one of the fruitful its of temporary insanity. There is not a n d man but that knows the effect of this es i upon the mind and the intellect of the ia sex. Why, there are girls here in this V -day laboring under this disease who are zyt home and would be perfectly irrespon- lepr any act they might commit, while that i on them ; and when we speak of dismen- kc, it is hooted down by counsel ; when we alif hereditary predisposition, it is “triv- “ don’t amount to anything when we amtion to the feelings of the accused on ' orning, her wild, vacant stare, her wish Oth, the counsel says: “It is trivial; it ■u s to nothing. ” I say to the Court that tie has gone by, thank God, when respon- 0 ings, afflicted by the Almighty, are to be ■,'gl to an ignominious death. The very t :p is to prove the relation of these par- ■ ie cannot move or stir a step without • ■ produce the case in Court, where this ' is question is ruled upon, in cases where reons for it were not one-twentieth part rcg as in this case ; and I undertake to th| there is no case of the kind where it bei excluded by the Court. RITTON.—Now, if the Court please, o! - pretend to have read the authorities thiast fifty years on this subject, nor do we pt he position in Court of hooting down iense. The point which I wish to make hi Court is this : There are some things hiiturally tend to produce insanity, under ainorities, both medical and legal; and e a some things which do not tend to pro- iianity, under the authorities, medical *%■ I simply ask this Court to discrimi- bfveen these things—between those which toroduce insanity and those that do not, thaare sought to be introduced into the toreach the prejudice of somebody on £)und. The Court can discriminate "■vlpe. It is not everything that tends to 'ic insanity. The question is simply a Imposition, and I don't intend to talk ■ 1 It is n °t every act that produces J1 tf it is only certain things that tend to uciRe result. MORRIS.—Indicate what are those cer- thj *s. r - LITTON.—It may be that this counsel, ‘g id all the authorities for the last fifty ’;. ci recapitulate them ; I cannot. It is [w'kerfaow for me to say that there are some L things which do not tend to produce this effect of insanity, and that is the point of the argu¬ ment. It is not necessary to define the things that do. Now I claim that there is nothing in the circumstances of this case, according to the opening, nor is there anything in the fact of two married persons living together adulterous- ly, from which the court can say this species of insanity should follow. The cases that have been cited are different from this. The case of Laura D. Fair is a very inapt illustration of the counsel’s position. In that case it was claimed by counsel in the opening, and they offered to prove, that not only had she committed the act of following up and killing this man under a repudiated promise of marriage; but they offered to prove that after that she showed clear indications of insanity, of being a raving ma¬ niac, and the only question was whether this was a feigned insanity or a real one. The jury found practically that it was a feigned one by finding her guilty of the offence charged in the indictment. Substantially the same arguments were made in that case as made here. When the defense offered to show the letters of the deceased, tending to show the relations between them, and under which he lived with her in this improper intimacy, after a long argument by the prosecution that there was nothing in these relations between these parties, nor anything in these letters tending to cause insanity, so far from the Court holding any such doctrine as claimed here, the Court there held this : ‘ ‘ I am not aware of any case where the au¬ thorities have gone so far as to allow corre¬ spondence of that character, except where a husband has been indicted for homicide in kill¬ ing the seducer of his wife or the supposed seducer ; or of the father in the same relation, with reference to a daughter, or a brother or some near relative. So far as this Court is con¬ cerned,‘it will not be the first judge to say that correspondence between a mistress and married man can be put in evidence to show that she was insane. ” That is the ruling of the Court on testimony offered on the precise ground on which this testimony is offered here. The let¬ ters afterwards came in ; but on other grounds and by consent. By the arguments of counsel one would think we are under the old Italian Vendetta, recognized in feudal times, when all that it was necessary to do when a woman was outraged was to kiil the next relative, who in turn must be killed, and so on. He talks about vengeance in one case and vengeance in an¬ other, and claims the same right for this wo¬ man to take vengeance on this man as a brother or husband would. If this is the ground of the argument, if it is a question of vengeance, who has a right to fake vengeance ? Vengeance on the part of individuals is not known to the law. Only the Almighty takes vengeance, and Courts administer the laws and do not uphold people in taking vengeance. The only instance the counsel could possibly cite is the case of Cole. In that case, notwithstanding the ver¬ dict was one of acquittal, it is one of those cases that is a disgrace to the jurisprudence of the country. While I concede that one’s sympa¬ thies are with persons wronged in this way— 42 with a husband avenging himself for the se¬ duction of his wife, yet at the same time look at the proceedings in that case. They claimed in that case mania Iransitoria. Look at the theory of it. They claim that it comes on in a moment and passes away in a moment ; they claim that this insanity comes on suddenly and passes away as suddenly after the act is done which has been perpetrated under its influence. In this case of Cole the jury come in and say : “We find the man was sane immediately before the act ; we find he was sane immediately after the act; but we have doubts whether he was sane at the time the act was committed.” The Court ruled if they had any doubt on that question of insanity, the benefit of that doubt should go to the prisoner, and they went out and returned a verdict of acquittal. As human nature is constituted, it may seem that that direction was right, but in the eye of the law it was not right; and if the law is to be sus¬ tained in the Courts, then these mitigating circumstances should go where they belong ; and where these mitigating circumstances ex¬ ist, let the clemency of the executive interpose. Under this plea of insanity, or pretended in¬ sanity, I don’t believe that it should be permit¬ ted that all the testimony which bears on the previous relations of the parties, should be ad¬ mitted to show some scandalous intrigues that are totally outside of any influence whatever on the question of insanity. Mr. MORRIS.—I have found an authority where this precise question has been ruled on. A witness is called in this case for the purpose of proving that Mr. Crittenden engaged a room. The question is asked : “Q. What did he say he wanted it for? A. He wanted it next to Mrs. Fair’s, so he would not sleep in the house with his wife ; that she would know it “Mr. CAMPBELL.—I object to this evi¬ dence, if your Honor please. “The COURT.—I overrule the objection. “Q. On Monday. You say that was the third day before the shooting ? A. Yes. “Q. Had you seen either there prior to that time? A. Yes. “Q. How frequently? A. I cannot say. Several times. “ Q. What part of the house? A. In Mrs. Fair’s room, sir, and in the hall.” There is the question on this testimony raised and passed. I am not called upon in this trial to vindicate Judge Hogeboom from the charge of being a fool. I don’t think he needs such a vindication at my hands. Mr. BRITTON. —May I ask the favor here that the Court will designate the manner in which counsel shall be heard in these arguments. I don’t like to be subjected to these remarks of the counsel after the close of what I deem to be a concluded argument. I would like to know where we stand ; and I suppose it would be orderly to admit only the moving argument, the answer, and then the reply. The COURT.—The Court will apply a very strict rule at some time during the progress of the case. Mr. BRITTON.—There may be an aD and then a reply. The COURT. —That will be the rule, counsel may state an objection, and stafi grounds, which may be answered by opp, counsel, which may be briefly replied to. Mr. MORRIS.—Suppose counsel in rep] troduce new matter, it would be perfectly lar to answer that new matter. Mr. BRITTON.—Well, the counsel ha troduced new matter as to Judge Hogeboo Mr. MORRIS. — He asserted the affim' of that. The COURT.—The Court adheres t( ruling on the question. It may come ii particularly as bearing on the question c sanity, but as relating to a fact or circums of the relations of these two parties, whic defendant has a right to have in. Q. Now state the circumstance to whic were about to allude when the objection w terposed ? A. The circumstances were t Mrs. Hyde, who was Fanny Windlev the livered an address at that exhibition. Aft delivery of the address, some person in th< of the church threw on to the platform t quet. It was something extraordinary; connected with that school ten years, I saw anything of the kind; it called forth re Objected to. Q. Whom did that come from ? A. It from the gentleman whose portrait I saw sented here in the picture. Q. Do you recollect seeing him there than once? A. I don’t recollect seeini there, only at that time ; I may have seei but don’t remember. Q. Do you know who Fanny's comp were, while she was attending school the female companions ? Objected to. Mr. MORRIS.—That is on the quest I her own character. Mr. BRITTON.—It is of no important into the question of her character, two, or four years back, before this happened. ' Mr. MORRIS. — That, certainly, is n remarkable opinion ; I suppose we can j i the question of her character from the ti left her cradle. The COURT.—Admitted ; we will ita the witness to state who her associatetfW confining the answer to that term. A. The girls of the class to which >j| longed ; I could name them all ; there w H or six very intimately acquainted with hi id Q. Were you the teacher of her class oial intendent ? A. I was the superintenden ti time. Q. Who was the teacher of her che 1 I Mrs. Hanshaw. Cross-na mination. Q. When was it that this eircnnwtaj* curred? A. April, 1870, two years ago.jB Q. Did you ever see this man at in'll time ? A. I don’t recollect. Q. Is that the only time you saw hi •' 1 That I recollect. 43 You have never seen him since? A. Never. From looking at that likeness, you identi- as being the likeness of the same man? recognize that to be the man. Never saw him before ? A. I don’t know ever saw him before or since. It did not occur to you at that time, that ing that bouquet was an act to produce ity? A. No. What did she do with that bouquet ? A. t know. Did she pick it up ? A. Picked it up. Did she take it away ? A. I cannot say. Did not see what she did with it ? A. No, .You did not see her do anything herself >oked like insanity. A. No, sir. Mrs. Jane Thatcher—Sworn. .Where do you live ? A. 275 Fleet street. . )o you know Fanny Hyde ? A. Yes. . low long have you known her ? A. I am lice ; it is between three and four years. • Where did you become acquainted with ? A. In the Sunday School. . ’he Sunday School of Primitive Metho- s A. Yes. . Vas she in your class ? A. No, sir ; she swas in my class ; it was a small school ; vier. , low long did she, 'to your knowledge, at- 1 lie Sunday School? A. I could not tell e ct time. :■ onsiderable time ? A. Yes ; she did not n so very regularly ; but until she was rl and sometime after she was married. , '0 you recollect seeing her after she was T-l ? A. Yes. here she attended up to May two years ? A. Yes. ■ ow was her conduct ? A. Very good, ner I saw her ; she was always very le No cross-examhiation. Edwin Holloway — Sworn. V here do you reside? A. 38 Division -t. !• rar business ? A. Machine smith, i p you know the accused, Fanny Hyde? • ]>w long have you known her? A. A • (jsr four years. here did you become acquainted with ■ 1 . In the Bridge street Primitive Metho- ^Siday School, where I was Superinten- ■ 1 you recollect the year she commenced Qd r| g that school ? A. I think it was the of 167 or the beginning of 1868 ; 1867, I 1 a think it was in 1867 ? A. Yes. I w long did you recollect of her attend- tke ? A. I think two years and a half. Q. "What was her conduct during that period ? A. Excellent. Q. Did you ever see Mr. Watson at that school ? A. Yes. Q. Do you know where they have lived during that period ? A. The first that I knew where she lived was in Flushing avenue, near Canton street, if I am not mistaken. Q. Did she remove to Williamsburgh after that? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did she continue to attend that Sunday School after that ; after removing to Williams¬ burgh ? A. Some few times. Q. Was she in the habit of visiting your house ? A. Yes, sir ; at times. Q. Have you daughters of her age ? A. Yes. Q. She was a companion of your daughters ? A. Not a companion ; only came from the Sab¬ bath School with the rest of the scholars, and sometimes visiting. Q. Did Fanny’s sister attend school with her ? A. Yes, sir ; up to the present time, Q. And that (pointing; is her sister? A. Yes. Q. What was Fanny’s apparent physical con¬ dition when she commenced going to Sunday School ? A. She seemed to be in good health. Q. Did she possess the fullness of face and color of her sister ? A. Some little. Q. Was she attentive to her studies ? A. Yes, sir ; very. Q. Did she attend church as well as the Sab¬ bath School ? A. Yes ; part of the time. No cross-examination. John Marr—Sworn. Q. Where do you live ? A. 263 Hester street, N. Y. Q. What is your business? A, Lace manu¬ facturer. Q. Do you know the accused ? A. Yes. Q. Did she at any time work for you ? A. Yes. Q. For how long ? A. Pretty nearly two years. The COURT. — What years ? A. From about July, ’65, until the end of the year 1867, or the beginning of 1868. Q. Was she an industrious girl ? A. Very industrious. Q. Her conduct ? A. It was perfectly correct while she worked for me Q. Was she in the habit of going to your house? A. Yes. Q. Did you have daughters ? A. Yes. Q. About her age? A. Yes. Q. What was her disposition toward the chil¬ dren ? A. Very kind. Q. You say she was industrious— more than ordinarily industrious ? A. Yes ; she was more than ordinarily industrious, and more than or¬ dinarily smart at her work. Q. Where was it that she worked for you? A. In White street, N. Y. Q. At the net business ? A. Hair-net business at that time. 44 Q. Under whose particular charge was she, while with you ? A. Under my wife’s charge. Cross-examination. Q. How many daughters had you ? A. Two. Q. Their ages ? A. One is now about seven¬ teen. Q. How old were they in 1865, when Mrs. Hyde came there to work for you? A. One would be about ten and the other eleven. Q. You say Mrs. Hyde was uncommonly smart ? A. Yes. Q. Do you mean at her work ? A. Yes. Q. Was not she very intelligent ? A. She was quite as intelligent as any girl I employed. Q. Did you know then about what her age was ? A. No ; I did not inquire about her age. Q. Did you form any judgment as to her age ? A. No, sir ; I did not have charge of the girls ; my wife had charge of them. Q. How do you know about her intelligence and capacity for work? A. Because I had to have all the information from my wife; and I was there in the place myself and saw. Q. Then you speak partially from the infor¬ mation from your wife? A. Yes. Q. You saw her yourself enough to say some¬ thing about that ? A. Yes. Q. If you saw her enough to say about her intelligence and smartness, did you not see her enough to judge something of her age? A. Yes. Q. What is your judgment? A. She was about eleven or twelve. William Newton — Sivorn. Q. What is your business? A. Lacemaker. Q. Where is your place of business ? A. 29 Centre street. Q. Where was it in January' last? A. I worked in the same place I work now. I left when he sold the machines, about Christmas time. Q. Where before that did you work ? A. For Mr. Bachman, from July, 1869, up to the end of 1871. Q. Where then? A. 39 Centre street Q. Did you ever work in this factory in Wil- liamsburgh ? A. Yes ; that’s Mr. Bachman’s. Q. This business was carried on in Mr. Bach¬ man’s name? A. Yes. Q, You know Fanny Hyde, then? A. Yes; she worked there when I went there. The COURT.—When did you first know her? A. In 1869. Q. Where ? A. At Watson’s. Q. Mr. Watson was interested in the busi¬ ness? A. Yes, I suppose so, but his name was never on the books. Q. While you were there did you notice the conduct of Mr. Watson to Fanny Hyde? A. Yes, certainly. Q. Shite what it was. A. Well, it would be about in October when I begun to take notice, when I thought- Objected to, what witness thought. The COURT.—Shite what you saw. A. Well, what attracted my attention was—tl was but Fanny and two more girls at worl the shop. He used to go among these § and skylark with them, send out after 05 - stews, buy candy and such like as that forth and have it brought in the shop. Q. State any other circumstances ? A. while he was carrying on like this, after he been larking with them, he would come my alley, and I have said to him— Objected to, what was said to deceased. Q. Answer this question in “Yes” or “1 Had you spoken to him with reference to freedom ? Objected to. Objection overruled. A. Yes. Q. Did you ever see him go to his boari house? A. Yes. Q. What time of day? A. It would be v : they quit at night Q. Did you ever see him follow her at ; place ? A. Well, she could neither stir at. the place, neither go in nor out, but wha i was following her, both before she was mai ( and after. Q. Do you know of her stopping at the . ] after the other girls left. A. Yes. The COURT.—After the hours of labor -1 over? A. Yes; we would all be going awa; > gether. Q. Would she remain in consequence of ;■ thing Watson said to her ? A. Yes. Q. What would he say to her on that sub Objected to. The COURT. —It may be shown whethei « stayed voluntarily or by his invitation. Mr. BRITTON.—It is a strange thing al you may kill a man and close his mouth, id then justify it by such evidence as this. ’ may prove any acts which justify killing ijJ I never heard, as a rule of law, that you ij prove the declarations of a party deceased ’I justification for killing him. The COURT. —I do not admit it as a ; fication, but to show an irresponsible sta ot mind of this accused, arising from a ce in state of facts which they expect to establisl Mr. BRITTON.—Then because Mr. Wim asked her to remain afterwards, and his de< .» tion to her induced her to remain, tends to )* the irresponsibility' of this defendant two in afterwards in killi ng him? I urge this co the Court, inasmuch as the people, in ca d error, have no remedy. I ask your Hono to give us the benefit of the consideration of ai* question ; and, of course, we defer to the r ng with entire respect. The COURT.—We don’t think we are (lib¬ erty to reject the question, having in vie- ln- class of testimony and the practice in si l*r trials in this State and elsewhere. Mr. BRITTON.—Do I understand this r ng to go to the declarations of the deceased re- after on all occasions. The COURT.—I don’t propose to liavmj ruling on the question go further than tin- tion to which it applies. I propose to noe to myself the right to overrule a question. ' times. 45 ! When»he would require her to remain after others had gone away, he would say, my, come and finish a few of these nets Come and cut me some netsor made rxcuse like that. , Were there any persons, to your knowl- ; remaining in the shop at that time ? A. [ know there were no persons there, only . Batson and Fanny. { About how many were working in that lng? A. Well, at the time I first went i there might have been eight or ten girls i working. {Do you know that girl (exhibiting a pho- rih)? A. Yes ; that’s Eliza Jackson. {Where did she work? A. In the same ps we did. {. ?or about what time did you work in the J When did you leave? A. I worked r< ibout two and a-half years. I left the euart of 1871. » Yhat time in 1871 did you leave? A. 111 would be when he sold the machines. n Id be a week or two before Christmas, I ei !■ >o you know how many separate estab- nits that building had at that time? A. ; oree on that floor. It was divided into ;e hops. !• here were some on other floors in the ie ailding? A. There was a clock shop un¬ it h, and under that a weaving shop, and e: that, on the ground floor, the smith’s p. There were different compartments in faory. • as there a closet on the first two floors? 7 , pu were not there during the month of U 0 r last? A. Yes; I think they sold the kiss in January. I expected to go to work 'e *ain, but did not; thev sold the ma¬ les, ) you know the fact of the closet on the 'I ];or being out of repair in January last? 'fcfir. ]>w often would this occur—Fanny and Ytson remaining after the other girls? '>ofe two or three times; maybe three or ti es. h you know how long they remained in rop on these occasions? A. No. Cross-examined. II you work in this factory last summer? tea Ys not there a time last summer when iua;inery was not at work? A. It stopped uly Ew long was it that there was no work e ? L There never was any more done e. » ■ Yen was it that they stopped off? A. at. ly or August. D you know when Mr. Watson went up ew ritain? A. Yes, I recollect the time. 'Ym was that? A. It would be in the Q ni ; of June. •Y you sure he did not go up there and ae f his work in March? A. I don’t know ; I am not certain ; I worked at the other place after he went there. Q. He went away at that time up in the coun¬ try? A. Yes; he went to look after the ma¬ chines in New Britain. Q. Do you know how long he stayed up there? A. No, I cannot tell exactly. Q. Did not he stay there until along down towards October? A. Yes: two or three months. Q. Then he did not come here to this factory ? A. He came to this factory when he brought the machines over. Q. He did not stay in this factory while the machinery was running in New Britain? A, No. Q. Where was Mrs. Hyde during that period? A. She went there to work, too. Q How long after he went on did she go up ? A. I could not tell; she did not work in our shop. Q. When he went to New Britain she did not work in the shop here? A. I could not say; she was not in the shop for a long time. Q. How long would you say, one, two, or three months ? A. Might be; could not say. She did work out of the shop. Q. When she was not working in the shop, before he went to New Britain, did she com6 there for work to take home ? A. Yes. Q. Nets to make, and made them at home, and brought them to the shop as the result of her work ? A. Yes. Q. Do you know of your own knowledge how she came to go to New Britain ? A. I do not. I could tell one thing, they were short of brass bobbin winding, she went to wind the brass bobbins. Q. Being experienced in that line ? A. Yes. Q. Do you know when she came back ? A. No ; a considerable time before Mr. Watson. Q. Then did you know where she went when she came back before Watson did? A. No. Q. Do you know whether or not she worked in this factory here ? A. I believe she did nets for her father. She went to live in Wythe ave. Q. She had a husband then ? A. Yes. Q. Had a husband when she went to New Britain? A. Yes. Q. Where was her father’s place? A. The same factory. Q. How long did she continue to make nets for her father ? A. I don’t know. Q. When do you know she found work in Bachman’s place ? A. In January. Q. The first time you saw her there after re¬ turning from New Britain ? A. It would be in January. Q. Were you to work there during that time? A. No, sir ; there was no work for me to do. But I used to go to the shop pretty nearly every day. Q. You say there were different compartments in this factory ? A. Yes. Q. Machinery, and working men and work¬ ing women in these parts ? A. Yes. Q. Did the rooms of these different compart¬ ments on the same floor communicate, or did doors lead into the hall? A. They were all partitioned off in the different shops. 46 Q. There -was no communication between each, except|through the hall? A. No. Q. The door from each led into the hall ? A. Yes, on the top floor. Q. Which floor was it Mr. Bachman occupied ? A. The two top floors. Q. Was the top floor the one you referred to where Mr. Watson remained after work? A. Yes. Q. You say that three or four times, to the best of your recollection, she remained at his re¬ quest? A. Yes. Q. What do you say he said to her ? A. He would ask her to come and finish him some nets, or something of that like. Q. That was before the hands left? A. Just as we were going out. Q. You heard it and the others heard it? A. Yes ; I suppose they heard it. Q. They were where they could have heard it? A. Yes. Q. When did you first notice that? A. In the faU of 1869. Q. Was she married then? A. No, sir. Q. How long was that before she was mar¬ ried? A. Months. Q. How long? A. I could not say. Q. Can you fix the time of the year? A. It would be in 1870 when she was married. Q. Can you fix the time of year when you first noticed her remaining at the request of Mr. Watson? A. November, 1869. Q. State just what he said to her. A. I have stated. He asked her if she would stop and get some nets at one time, and at another time he asked her to finish some nets. Q. She was then working at nets? A. Yes. Q. Before you left ? A. Yes. Q. Did you see anything more of them ? A. No. Q. And that’s the occasion where, you said in your direct examination, he made excuses like that; that is, what you call excuses ? A. Yes, of course. Q. You don’t know what occurred there ? A. I do not Q. How far apart were these occasions these three or four times? A. Within a week, or per¬ haps two or three weeks. Q. Do you remember any instance of his ask¬ ing anybody else to stop ? A. No ; there were but two others there at that time. Q. You say he followed her everywhere; when was this following? A. It commenced about October, 1869. Q. When did it terminate—if at all? A. I guess it never did terminate. Q. How long did you see it continue? A. Every time she came in the shop. Q. How long did you stay there ? A. I was working there steadily. Q. Down to what period ? A. For two years anyhow. Q. From the fall of ’69, for two years you say you saw him following her everywhere? A. No, I did not say for two years, I did all the time she was there. Q. I ask you again, from what time to what time did you notice him follow her everywhere, as you say ? A. Until the time they went i New Britain, 1871. Q. During that period state anj* specific i casionswhen you saw him following her? , I have seen him follow her out of the shop : the landing, and out of one shop into the otl • Q. Out of what shop—the shop where ;i was at work, the weaving shop ? A. Yes. I Q. She went ahead and he followed? A. I , Q. How soon after ? A. Perhaps a minut 1 Q. That is one instance; tell us another i stance. A. ’Undreds of them. Q. When is the next occasion? A. Mj times a day. Q. State specific occasions when you saw :1 following her. A. I saw him follow her e'J time she went out of the door. Q, You have stated one occasion when i saw him follow her from your room into a weaving room, now state another ? A. I to j she went down into the weaving room on b occasion, but as a general thing I don’t ki a where she went, out on the landing I suppo Q. State any other place or occasion ? A i score or more times on the landing. One tu they were talking together outside on the to J the stairs. Q. The hallway, top of which stairs? I The third flight. Q. You saw them go out of the room wli they worked, she first and he following anil the landing of the stairs, and they ta lkedn gether? A. Yes. Q. Is that all about that ? A. Not exactl; Q. What else ? A. I have seen him with i arm around her neck kissing her. Q. How many times? A. Once. Q. What was she doing? A. Letting I kiss her. Q. She did not make any resistance ? | did not see her. Q. When was that first particular occasai A. In November, 1869. Q. What time of the day was it ? A. >< tween two and three in the afternoon. Q. Did you come out suddenly on them ? A I opened the door and looked out Q. Anybody could open the door and ol out? A. Yes. Q. What then ? A. Then I went in agai Q. Did they make any movement to incUt they saw you ? A. No. Q. Was anj-thing done by which you cili tell whether they did see you ? A. I am ce di they did not see me. Q. How long did you look? A. I jusm my head out and drew it in again; might i* been out half a minute. Q. Did you notice whether she was ki n| him ? A. No. Q. Where was he kissing her? A. OrJ» face. Q. What part of the face? A. KissingM face; it might be on the cheek, might beoJUl mouth, might be on the nose. Q. Well, he could not kiss all over her ftp• one. time unless his mouth was larger tl) i think it was ? A. He put his mouth dowiflu that, (illustrating!. 47 The side of her face ? A. Yes. i Which arm did he have around her ? . A. !.e left arm. }. Both standing up ? A. Both standing. J. How large a man is Mr. Watson? A. 5 it 9. J. You have stated two occasions—state an- :ier occasion when you saw him following her I m place to place ? A. I could not tell where, lave seen them going out. j. Witness, answer my question. State uether or not you can or not tell another par- ; liar occasion of his following her. A. I have in him go out day after day several times ; I : inot state any more. i- Can you specify any particular occasion ? • No. J. Did you ever see him follow her any- 1 ere else except from one work room to an- )er, or out on the stairway? A. No, I don’t [>w as I did. Re-direct. (. You have seen him follow her out and did 1 know where they went ? A. I did not know i;re they were going to. ). You say she was not working in March, ■ I ? do you recollect her going to Washington uer mother-in-laws to be attended medically? il know she could go there, but could not s what time it was. 1 . Her husband went up to New Britain also ? i Yes. |, He went up there before she went up ? A. n not certain, I believe he did. . The machinery that is used in that building 3 :es a good deal of noise in its operation ? A. . So that you can’t hear conversation in the :a? A. You have got to be very close to- f er if you would do it. You could not hear them converse in the !? A. No. What time of day was this that you saw i in with his arm around her neck ? A. Be- ' n two and three o’clock in the afternoon. Re-cross. Do you know she went to her mother- 1 w for medical aid? A. I don't know what ] vent for. Alexandre Amos — Sworn. ' Where do you live ? A. 37 Reade Street, ( York. 1 Business? A. Lace Maker. 1 Do you know the accused here, Fanny i)? A. Yes. I How long have you known her? A. A tf over four years. 1 Where did you first become acquainted i her ? A. At her father’s house. 1 Did you know Mr. Watson? A. Yes. 1 Did you ever work in that factory? A. • When was that? A. I commenced to work the 1st of October, 1868. I worked there until the latter end of July, 1869, the first time. Q. Was Fanny Hyde working there at that time ? A. She came to work there about three months after I went there. That would bring it about January, 1869. Q. Did you notice Mr. Watson’s conduct to¬ ward Fanny? A. Not at first I did not; but sometime afterwards I did. Q. State what attracted your attention. A. I always used to think— The COURT. — State what you saw; not your thoughts. A. I could not hear, but I saw him speaking to her frequently and the other girls with a smile on his countenance and all that. Q. Did you ever speak to Mr. Watson about his conduct toward Fanny and the girls ? A. The second time I worked there I did, but not the first. Q. You left and then returned? A. Yes. Q. And when was it that you returned ? A. In ’71 January. Q. What did you notice as to his conduct after you returned ? A. I noticed that he al¬ ways paid particular attention to Fanny. Q. State, as near as you can, what the atten¬ tions were. A. It affected me so much-. The COURT. - What did you see ? A. I saw him pay particular attention to Fanny. Q. Specify what you mean ? A. Speaking to them over their shoulders, tapping them on the shoulders, looking them in the face and laugh¬ ing, &c. Q. You say you spoke to him about it ? A. Yes. Q. Did you go to him ? A. Yes. Q. And spoke to him with reference to his familiarity with the girl ? Objected to. Q. Was that the subject of which you spoke? The COURT.—I am inclined to think you have the fact. His attention to these girls at¬ tracted the attention of the witness. Mr. Wat¬ son being dead, I do not know as you want to go any further into this particular branch of the, case. Mr. MORRIS.—I believe your Honor has in¬ timated that it was proper to ask what Mr. Watson said in reply. The COURT.—If I have ruled it in, I will adhere to that ruling. I should have to limit you to any remarks in connection with the accused. Q. State all that you can recollect upon that subject; all the acts of Mr. Watson toward the accused—acts of familiarity. A. I went up to Mr. Watson and told him -. Objected to. Q. They won’t allow you to tell what you said to him or he said to you. State what his acts were toward the girl ; state all the particulars. A. I have seen him tap them over the shoulders and look them into the face when he ought to be paying attention to the work. He was super¬ intendent of the winding. Q. Did you ever see him follow her to any place ? A. I didn’t see him follow her. I have seen him, when he was coming up stairs, turn to the left when there were two or three girls. Mr. BRITTON.—I ask that this witness be 48 instructed to confine his answers to transactions between the defendant and deceased. Mr. MOEBIS.—With reference to Mrs. Hyde particularly. A. There was more than Mrs. Hyde there at the time I spoke of. I have seen him turn to the left instead of going to the right into the shop. Q. Do you know a girl by the name of Jack- son ? A. I do. Q. Did she work there at the time you worked there ? A. I believe she did. Q. Do you know about how old she was ? A. I could not tell one way or the other ; I knew them all. Q. Do you remember the time Fanny went to Washington ? A. I do not. Q. Do you recollect the time she went to New Britain ? A. I heard she was gone. Q. Do you know when her husband went up there. A. Only by hearsay. Q. You were not working at that time ? A. No, sir. A’o cross-examination. The Court here adjourned until the next morning at 10 o’clock, having instructed the jurors not to converse upon the subject among each other or with any one else. -«♦»-.- THIRD DAY. Sarah Marr — Sworn. Q. Where do you reside ? A. 203 Astor. Q. You are the wife of John Marr, examined yesterday? A. Yes. Q. Are you acquainted with Fanny Hyde ? A. Yes. Q. When did you become acquainted with her ? A. About 1865 ; she came to work with me for Mr. Marr. Q. How long did she continue there? A. Up to January, 1867. That was in the work room. Her name was then Fanny Windley. Q. At what business? A. Making hair nets. Q. Was she in the habit of visiting your daughters? A. Yes. Q. At your house? A. Yes. Q. She was under your supervision? A. Yes. Q. State whether she conducted herself prop¬ erly or not. A. She was an excellent girl; was a good girl in the work-room, and her conduct, too, was very good. She was an agreeable and very nice girl; as good a girl as I would wish to have. I never had any trouble with her. She used to attend the Sabbath school with one of my daughters, and generally brought her home. Sometimes, of a work-day, when the work was over, she would come and play with the children, so that I saw a great deal of her. In fact, she was with me more than 6he was at her own home at one time. Q. What Sabbath school did she attend with your daughters? A. The Methodist Church in Hudson street. Q. Did she attend the Sabbath school during the most of the time she was with you ? Y r es, the greater part of the time ; perhi twelve months. Q. Mostly in company with your daughte ' A. Yes. Q. Do you know of her attending any selio ', A. She attended night-school in Moore Str. at the time she worked with me. Cross-examined. Q. She was a smart girl, too ? A. Yes. Q. Smarter than girls usually of her &<' A. She was the smartest girl. I often mi ■ the remark to girls now that she was the smt l est girl I ever had in my work-room. Q. Yery intelligent? A. Yes. Q. Superior to most girls, and to all gi you know of her age in that respect? A. t our work-room. Q. How old was she then ? A. When it left me she was pretty nearly fourteen; so ; j would be some where near about twelve. 1 think I heard her say she was fourteen bef; she left me in 1867. Q. Do you know where she went when > left your place ? A. I don’t know unless *, came along here. I think she lived out a li: while. Q. What circumstance led to her leav; you ? A. I had a young girl six or seven yes, the youngest, and they kind of disagreed. was a little, pettish thing, so Fanny complaii 1 to me. I think her father thought the child i took advantage of Fanny. She complaii 1 again about the little child teasing her. I sa 1 , “Fanny, if you cannot get along, you may ]t on your things and go.” So she went, but u came there often after that. Q. The circumstance you have stated resul 1 in her leaving you ? A. Yes, sir. R-direct. Q. After that she was in the habit of visit ? your house? A. Yes. Q. When you spoke of her being smart, ja have reference to her being handy at her wo:? A. Yes. Re-coss. Q. Didn’t you likewise have reference to r general smartness ? A. Yes. Q. The general mental smartness as wells physical smartness ? A. Yes. Q. You ,said she was the smartest girl u ever knew ? A. Yes, in our work-room. Q. She was smart in general mental peci- arities as any girl of her age you ever had the ? A. Yes, a smart, good girl. Edward Weaving — Sworn. Q. Where do you live? A. 562 Mye Avenue. Q. What is your business ? A. Mason. A. Did you know George W. Watson. AI did. Q. Did you know Fanny Hyde ? A. I did Q. Did you ever see Mr. Watson going i her house ? A. J did. 49 On more than one occasion ? A. Yes. When as near as yon can recollect? A. I first time I ever took notice of it was the e he lived in Kent Avenue, about the middle st January. I noticed him again the time u were living in Wythe Avenue, i What time of day? A. The first time I ic particular notice of it -was about ten C3k in the morning. ( In Kent Avenue did anything occur that :t uted your attention before you went in the 313 ? A. No, sir; in Wythe Avenue there i4 ( State what it was ? A. I went in there jt Sunday to see Mr. Hyde. On entering the x I heard some noise inside, but didn’t ar what it was. C Was it loud talking ? A. Yes, ’twas loud II ig, but I couldn’t understand the language, n atering the room Mr. Watson and Fanny yi were sitting together. Mr. Watson had s and on Fanny’s shoulder, and after I ifiid he moved a little one side and began Ik g to me. That is all that occurred at that nr QHow often have you seen him go to her u ? A. I have noticed it in particular re or four times. Cross-examined. Q What kind of a room was this where you v iem together ? A. A small kitchen. (JWho lived at that house ? A. Fanny .'•(l and her husband. Q.Iid they keep house there ? A. Yes. Q.Chis was after they were married? A. es. Q. lid you see her husband when you was t'mn that occasion? A. No. sir; he didn’t n until a few minutes afterwards. Q- le came in while you were there ? A. ss. 4 low long after you entered the room did 1 ci e in ? A. I suppose it was ten minutes sc He promised to meet me there, and he s : t hardly on time. Q- ’id he come in that room ? A. He did. I Then you entered the room what part of W3 they sitting? A. On the left as I nt l. Q- nwhat? A. On two chairs. -■ ow near were the chairs together? A. fc'h lose together. I ith his hand where ? A. Lying on her ul r in a careless way. au didn’t hear any conversation before ’■a( ddressed to you ? A. No, sir. I ow did they act when you Went in there ? jat as their manner ? A. Both Mr. Watson I r my blushed up when I went in. <■ l d they both move? A. Watson moved ■ Fanny sat still. He moved up a little setoward the window where I was sitting, v as you pretty well acquainted with Mr. de A. I was. >w long had you been acqainted ? A. I ox must have been close on five years. was a friend of yours ? A. Yes. .' d you say anything to Mr. Hyde on 5 si iect ? A. I did not. Q. Never said anything to him about it ? A. I did not. Isaac P. Maples — Sworn. Q. Where do you reside ? A. 12 Wythe avenue. Q. What is your business ? A. Engineer. Q, Were you acquainted with Mr. Watson and Fanny Hyde? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever see Mr. Watson and Fanny at the factory, comer of South Eleventh and First street? A. Yes. Q. State the occasion ? A. I have seen them there a great many times Q. Did you ever see them alone together in a room? A. No, sir. Q. Did you ever see them coming alone out of a room. A. Yes. Q. State the circumstances ? A. A year ago last 4th of July week, I think it was Thursday the 7th, one of the three days that we were lying still—repairing engine and boiler ; I had got through my engine work and went up stairs to fit a key to a lock of a door, about four or five feet from their door ? while fitting the key Fanny came out; I heard her unlock the door, and he came out right behind her. Q. The door was locked ? A. I heard the bolt slide when she took hold of the key, and heard her take hold of the knob after turning the key. Q. Were there any other persons in the room? A. No, sir. Q. How long were you there before they came out ? A. It might have been ten minutes before they came out ; it might have been longer. Q. You didn’t see them go in ? A. No, sir ; I didn’t know anybody was in the room. Cross-examined. Q. Did you go into the room out of which they come ? A. Yes. Q. When ? A. Bight away, after they came out; they left the door open and went down stairs. Q. What time of day was it ? A. Afternoon, sometime. Q. When was it ? A. Fourth of July week, a year ago, either Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Q. Was that before or after she was married? A. That I cannot say. Mr. MORRIS.—She was married two years ago this coming May. Q. Was anything unusual in their appearance ? A. She blushed some and he colored a little. Q. Was anything said by either of them ? A. They were talking to themselves, I did not pay any attention. Q. Nothing said to you ? A. No. Q. Was the factory running then ? A. No. Q. Nobody there then ? A. Only in the lower part, men repairing and putting up shaft¬ ing ? Q. Was there any one else about the building but you ? A. Yes, a number down stairs. 50 Q. Have you any knowledge whether there were persons on the upper floors ? A. I am very positive there were not on the top floors. Q. On any of the floors except the lower floor? A. I think in the weaving shop, some one might have been working there ; I know there was no one on the top floors. Q. Which floor was this where you was fitting the key ? A. Top floor ; three flights up. Q. When you went into the room, what did you observe there ? A. Nothing unusual. Q. Was there any furniture? A. Machinery, net looms, work table, and chairs. Q. Is that all. A. Yes. Q. All the furniture which appertained to the workroom? A. Yes. Q. And that only? A. Yes. Mrs. Kate Lown — Sworn. Q. Where do you reside ? A. 323 Kent avenue. Q. You know Fanny Hyde? A. Yes. Q. How long since you became acquainted with her ? A. About eighteen months. Q. Did she and her husband board with you ? A. They lived at my house, and when Mrs. Hyde went to Washington, Mr. Hyde boarded with me a few days, while she was away. That was in March, 1871. Q. How long was Mrs. Hyde at your house ? A. Seven months. Q. She left about March to go to Washington? A. About that time, but I don’t remember the date. Q. Were you acquainted with George W. Watson ? A. Yes ; I knew him by sight. Q. Was he in the habit of coming to the house ? A. Yes. Q. To see Mrs. Hyde? A. Yes. Q. Frequently ? A. I should call it frequently. Q. " hat time of day would he usually come ? A. Well, I could not just now say, sometimes in the morning and sometimes in the afternoon. Q. Would that be in the absence of her hus¬ band? A. Yes ; and then in the evening some¬ times when her husband was at home. Q. How long would he usually stay ? A. I could not exactly say how long. THE COURT.—Give j r our opinion. A. Well, perhaps he staid an hour ; perhaps longer and perhaps shorter. Q. When she returned from Washington did she return to the house ? A. Yes. Q. How long did she remain there then ? A. A few weeks. Q. She went to New Britain after she returned ? A. As far as that is concerned I cannot say. Q. How long was she absent at Washington ? A. J think she went to be gone two weeks; whether she staid that length of time, I cannot say. Q. Have you ever heard Fanny speak of Mr. W’atson, as to who he was? A. Yes. Q. State who she represented him to be ? Objected to and withdrawn. Cross-examined. Q. How long altogether did Mrs. HydCve with you in the same building ? A 1 ea months. Q. Where you occupying the same aparti it with her ? A. She had four separate r from me. Q. You didn’t keep house together? A,’o, sir. Q. You occupied one set of apartment nc she the other? A. Yes. Q. Which part of the premises did she oc .py and which did you occupy ? A. She occ ied four rooms in front, and I occupied two r ms in the extension and rooms up stairs. Q. What sized house was that ? A. Tw> ad a half story. Q. She kept house there with her husl .d ? A. Yes. Q. During that seven months, do you on where she worked ? A. She worked ii the house, but I understood she worked ii the factory, she told me that herself. Q. Watson’s factory ? A. Yes. Q. Do you know where her husband w at work at that time ? A. At Mr. Appleton' art of the time, and part of the time in the ry. Q. How many times could you be able Ra¬ tify that Mr. Watson came there durin the seven months. A. Well, I would be will ; to say a half a dozen times. Q. Did you take any particular notice iow long he staid on these occasions ? A. I dtiot Q. How many times was Mr. Hyde the on these occasions? A. Well, Mr. Hyde was fient at his work when Mr. Watson came durii the day. In the evening he was always at hoi. Q. Did Mr. Watson come as frequently the evening as in the day time? A. I think hlid. Q. Didn’t he come more frequently i the evening, when Mr. Hyde was there, than hen not? A. No, sir ; I don’t think he did ; lout equally. Q. Did you ever see Watson and Hy< to¬ gether much ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know of your own knoydge whether or not the relations between Mr. yde and Mr. Watson were friendly or unfridly. A. Friendly. Sarah Webb — Sworn. Q. Where do you reside ? A. 139 sson avenue. Q. Did you know Mr. Watson by sigh A. No, sir. Q, Did you ever see a person who it wi said carried on the manufactory' of hair-nets, the comer of First and South Eleventh street' A. No, sir ; I never saw him fully in the fac Q. Did you see him enough to be able say whether that, was the man ’'—(showing >oto- graph.) A. I could not tell. Q, She never boarded in your house a hie! A. No, sir ; she had apartments in our bsa Q. When was that? A. It must havbeec 51 0 I there after they two ? A. That’s all I DOT Q. Might there not have been some other person about the factory after you left? A. Not that I can say. Q. There were more working than these two at these other times ? A. Yes. Q. You did’nt always leave last ? A. The men genendly went out before we did. Q. Did you always leave the last of the girls ? A. We both went together. Q. Were not more than you four there some of the time ? A. Yes. Q. How many were there during that period at any time ? A. Only one as I can recollect. Q. You went away and left them there, and saw nothing more of them that day ? A. No, sir. Q. That’s all you know about that ? A. Yes. Re-direct. Q. You said that part of the time there were no other girls there. State whether you and the other two girls left together when you left at night ? A. She was not all of the time up¬ stairs. Sometimes she was down in the plush room and then we went home from down there. Q. She was in another part of the building ? A. Yes. Re-cross. Q. There were others there sometimes ? A. Yes. Q. Generally working in that room? A. Yes. Q. When you went out, you girls, you left the door open in the usual way ? A. We al¬ ways shut the top door behind us. The street- door was always open. Eliza Jackson—Sworn. A. I worked in the shop with Mr. Watson, Fanny and the last witness. Q. Do you recollect Fanny’s remaining in the shop after the other girls left at night ? A. Yes. Q. Who remained with her ? A. Mr. Wat¬ son. Q. Can you say about how often? A. No, sir. Q. About how long did you work there ? A. Going on three years, altogether. I cannot say how long I worked there at first. Q. How long did you and Fanny work there together ? A. Until the March before she was married, Q. How long before that were you together ? A. I don’t know. I could not tell when I first went there. Q. Do you know how she came to remain there after the other girls left? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know how long she would remain after they had left ? A. No, sir. Q. Was Mr. Watson in the habit of bringing things to the shop for the girls ? Objected to the word habit. Q. Did he bring things in? A. Yes, sir; there were things brought in. 52 The COURT.—Refreshments? A. Cake— things like that. Q. Did you notice his conduct toward Fanny? A. No more than they were friendly. Cross-examined. Q. How often were those refreshments brought in while you were there ? A. I cannot say ; may be once a week or may be once in two weeks. Q. What time of day was it ordinarily ? A. It was generally in the afternoon or before din¬ ner. Q. Brought in by way of lunch ? A. Yes. Q. And all the girls and parties in the factory partook of it ? A. Yes ; whoever happened to be in the room. _ Arthur M. Thomas — Sworn. A. I live a t 63 Tyler street, Williamsburgh ; business is foreman of a paper factory. I know Fanny Hyde. She was employed in that insti¬ tution. In January, 1869, I resided in Flush¬ ing avenue and she resided in the same house. Q. She went to her work and returned in company with you ? A. The greater portion of the time. Q. How long did she work there ? A. About six weeks, Q. You lived in the house with her about how long ? A. Altogether about one year. Q. From what you saw and observed of her what was her conduct ? Objected to, unless knowing the view with which the question is asked. Mr. MORRIS.—On the question of charac¬ ter. Mr. BRITTON.—Then I don’t object. Mr. MORRIS.—We open the door. Mr. BRITTON.—All right ; we’ll walk in. Mr. MORRIS.—We’ll open it wide. Now what was her conduct? A. Very good. Q. You had occasion, when she didn’t work in your house, to see her frequently ? A. Very frequently. Q. Did she used to come to your apartments ? A. She visited my apartments continually. Q. Had you a family ? A. I had. Q. Had you children ? A. Two—small ones. Q. What was her conduct so far as they were concerned ? A. She was very fond of the chil¬ dren, and they were exceedingly fond of her. Q. What was her habit as to being home nights ? A. She was usually employed making nets. Q. State whether she was at home or out ? A. She was at home. I knew of very few even¬ ings she was out during the time I knew her. Q. With whom would she be out then ? A. Usually accompanied with her sister. Q. When did you remove from the house you occupied ? A. In February, 1870. She removed previous to that in September, 1869. Cross-examined. Q. Be kind enough to state between the dates she lived in the same house with you ? A. From the 1st of December, 1868—Dec ih or November, I am not positive which-ntn the 1st of September, 1869. Q. Did you know for whom she was n di the nets ? A. I did not positively. Q. Do you know where she took the ne sb made ? A. I am not positive. Q. Do you know whether or not her the: was in that business ? A. He was not tl i ii business for himself. I think he was emj yea in that trade. Q. That is his business ? A. Yes. Thomas Whittaker — Sworn. A. I live at 502 Flushing avenue; era knew Mr. Watson ; saw him about half anom after he was shot, but he was laid out on me- thing up in one of the rooms, on a stretcl: a a bench, or something up from the floor. Q. Did you see any abrasions of the hi A. Yes ; there were some marks as if the. hat been a scuffle or a fight. I did not knor her he was shot. I said, ‘ ‘ Where does the .(* < come from ? Of course that could not 11 : man.” Q. What in your judgment was it? Objected to. Q. Where else did you notice any abrioni of the face ? A. I didn’t notice anythin bn scratches on his head. (Witness indicating from the centre ■ tin forehead toward each side.) Cross-examined. Q. Did you see any other marks on h fee than those you have described on his fortad A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Were there any marks on his cheek A I didn’t notice any. Q. How much did you examine his ft? oi that occasion ? A. I didn’t examine any inc only I saw scratches. (Witness indicating as before scratch; a the forehead.) Q. How much did you examine his face'the than his forehead ? A. I didn't examintinj thing other than looking in his face and ein the scratches on his forehead. Q. Do you swear the marks ran acrq hi forehead ? A. They came across this way (Witness indicating with his finger mil scratches from the centre to the sides hi forehead) Q. Commenced in the centre and ran • th sides. A. Yes. Q. Describe the marks? A. Like a sate, of the nails. Q. Was there more than one mark oimc side of the forehead? A. Yes, a good msV- Q. How many? A. I cannot tell; I d nc count them. Q. More than five? A. I can’t tell; di not count them. . Q. Were there more than seven ? A. I on suppose there was. Q. Do you know ? A. I am sure the: ws not that many. 53 >low do you know there wasn’t? A. I hink there were. \Jo you know that there were not more o seven ? A. I don’t believe there was ! i.)o you know? A. I don’t know any- i ibout it; I don’t believe there was. iJid you see any marks on the forehead ; 'ere downward or upward ? A. They e ind of crosswise. li ition repeated. .. said crossways on the forehead. 1 . )o you swear you saw the skin broken on 1 ehead at all ? A. Yes. yhat is your business ? A. I keep a y 7 store. ;. low did you happen to go there on that is n ? A. The same as other people. They ic a and collared me, and I went to see the ie; other people. !• [ad you any particular business there ? N I went as a casual observer there. Henry Potts — Sioorn. ■ eside in Division Avenue; business is h'eaver; was to work in this factory on casion; have known Fanny Hyde two i rnlf years; became acquainted with her h'actory; was in the habit of seeing her iii'ltly; was in the factory the morning on sl'ifr. Watson was shot; saw Fanny that a ’ between ten and eleven; saw her at d< • of the plush room on the second floor. hat was she doing at the door? A. I a the bench when I heard a knocking at di r. I went and opened it, and it was ni iyde. hat did she do ? A. I let her in. ■ . d she say anything ? A. No, sir. lere did she go? A. She went to the r- iset. I w long did she remain there? A. I d t say. II you wait at the stove at any time ? v ted at the stove some time. She didn’t 5 t as soon as I expected, and I went ti pork. ^ s there anything in her appearance at ,cted your attention when you went to do and saw her there? A. There was tl g singular about her appearance. I cribe it? A. I could hardly describe nl that there was something the matter hi that is all I could tell. I cribe her eyes ? A. Her eyes were ni wollen, and her complexion was darker 'MI y it sort of expression did she have ? A. : 11 iow that. B / did she appear; what did her face indi- I had very little time to take any ap- ,ut because she passed me as soon as I 8(1 e door; I looked her in the face, and 0 ® >ack was soon on me. D she have her usual appearance. A. No, ts&fl Q. Can you describe it any more fully than you have ? A. I guess not. Q. Did you see her after she passed and went in again until after Mr. Watson was shot? A. No, sir. Cross-Examined. Mary Gleason — Sworn. Q. Where do you reside ; A. 126 South 4th street; I know Fanny Hyde ; she is not related to me in any way ; have been acquainted with her a year and a half; am on friendly terms. Q. Were you at work in this factory on the morning this homicide took place? A. I did not work in the factory ; I took work out, but I was there that morning in my father’s room, that was on the second floor, on the right. Q. Who was in that room ? A. I could not say, two or three girls, I do not know who they were. Q. What room was Fanny working at the time ? A. Mr. Dexter’s, I believe ; I am not certain. Q. Was Fanny’s step-mother in the room ? A. She was. Q. Did you see Fanny that morning? A. I did, between eleven and twelve o’clock. She came in the room where I was. Q. If I understand you right, you just opened the door and let her in ; she passed along and and went into this place you have described ? A. Yes. Q. She did not stop at all ? A. She only stopped while I opened the door. Q. She was at the door when you opened it ? A. Yes. Q. Then, as you opened it, she started there and did not stop ? A. No. Q. When did it first occur to you that there was any thing peculiar that attracted your atten¬ tion ? A. It occurred to me at the time- -right away. It looked as though she had been crying, or something of that kind. Q. Did she look as though she was distressed ? A. I could not tell what was the matter with her. Q. Her face, generally is pleasant and mild ? A. Yes. Q. She did not generally have red eyes ? A. No. Q. You never saw any of these indications while yon were there, before this particular occasion? A. No, sir. Q. She was generally cheerful? A. Yes. Q. Good-natured ? A. Well I had never much to say to her. Q. In appearance she was lively, cheerful and good-natured? A. Yes. Q. Nothing to indicate down to that time that she was not entirely happy? A. Well I don’t know that I can remember. Q. You don’t remember any appearance of that kind? A. No. Q. Nothing distinguished her appearance from anybody else—in other words, it was natural until that time perfectly ? A. Yes. 54 Q. What did she do when she came in the room? A. She came in and spoke to her mother. Q. Did you hear what she said ? A. No, sir, I did not. Q. Where were you sitting, how near ? A. About five feet. Q. Did she speak to you ? A. No, sir. Q. Was that her usual custom? A. No, sir. Q. Did you notice anything in her appear¬ ance on that occasion, how did she look ? A. Very wild and very much excited. Q. What did she do after she spoke to her mother ? A. She turned and went out. Q. Was she facing you when she came in ? A. Yes, she was. Q. Can you describe her expression more fully ? A. I don’t know as I can, only she did not look natural. Cross-Examined. Q. You say she looked wild and excited, did she look like a person in anger ? A. No, sir. Q. How did she look ? A. She seemed to be very much agitated, excitable, and looked rather pale. Q. Have you seen persons in anger look pale_? A. I don’t remember as I have. Q. You don’t know the fact to be that when angry some people turn pale while other tem¬ peraments turn red ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What other thing besides paleness did you see indicating excitement ? A. She seemed to look around so strangely. Q. Can you be a little more definite ? A. No, sir. Q. She went directly to her mother when she came in ? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long was she talking to her mother ? A. Two minutes. Q. Then turned around and went out ? A. Yes. Q. Did she stop from the time she entered the door until she got where her mother was ? A. No. Q. How far was her mother from the door ? A. As far as from you to the rail—eight feet. Q. Where was you standing ? A. At the other end of the table. Q. Where was the table? A. Opposite the door on the left hand side; her mother sat at one end and I at the other. Q. How long was the table ? A. Five feet. Q. She went directly to her mother at one end while you sat at the other end five feet off? A. Yes. Q. When did you first notice her ? A. When she came in at the door. Q. Did she walk quickly or moderately ? A. Quickly, and went to her mother directly. Q, When she turned around, did you see her any more ? A. I did not. Q. All you saw of her was from the time she entered the door until she reached her mother? A. Yes. Q. When did it first occur that she had this look you mentioned ? A. Right away. Q, Did you say anything to anybody on the subject? A. I did. Q. Then? A. No, sir. Q. Did you at all until after the killin No, sir. Q. Never mentioned it to anybody uu' at the killing? A. No, sir. Q. Is it not a fact that this idea sugge d self to your mind after you had found tl ] Watson had been killed, and that Fann® had been charged with ki llin g him? . Y sir. Q. Was not that the time that it first om to’’ your mind that there was something m about Mrs. Hyde that morning? A. Ned* Q, After this killing the impressic 1 greater on your mind? A. Yes. Q. Have you talked about it since?A number of times. Q. As you talked about it the imj Bsi grew stronger in your mind ? A. I don ii it has. Q. Do you think that if you had nn d occasion when this entrance of Mrs. 1 J eurred that it then was an impression p W mind that she was out of her mind? j. ■ something was not right, Q, Was there an impression on your indi that time, on that occasion, that she wi;Outi her mind ? A. I could not say that I wug 55 II out of her mind, but I knew it was not That she was not in her right mind ? A. t she was. /hat do you mean by saying in her right ] A. She seemed to be excited, and not 1 , r as it an impression on your mind that 1 not her faculties ? A. I do not know ' 8 . ’hat she hadn’t her senses ? A. She ’ et as if she had. as that the impression that your mind i hat time ? A. I cannot say for certain. hat was the impression on your mind rime—that she did not know what she dng? A. I could not say. m you say that it was or was not? A. 31 ien you don’t mean to say either way t >ur impression was on that subject ? A. u not like to say, I could not. it not a fact that it did not occur to you a ime that Mrs. Hyde did not know what vi doing? A. No, sir I don’t think it did. iu don’t think that it occurred to you ? ft sir. d it occur to you at any time from the s i came in at the door and spoke to her le until she went out that she did not v aat she was about ? A. I think it did. d you stood within five feet of her le md never spoke to her mother about it! d not. 1 at she did not know what she was it hat she was crazy in other words ? A. I I II say she was crazy. 'iat do you mean by saying that she t now what she was about, was she— n ited.) A. No, sir, she might have , 11 don’t think she was. 1 what way did that impress you that she 10 mow what she was about? A. Nothing ■ t n her actions. A at actions indicated that she did not v ' at she was about ? A. She came in so fit y. I iv singularly ? A. I can’t express it. A at actions did you see which led you di ; that she didn’t know what she was it? 4. Nothing more than coming in and g Id. C you define what her actions were ? A. mji T n, impressed as your mind was, on o< sion, on the spot, that she did not < v it she was about, you never spoke to ■lo ;r on that subject, you didn’t ask her ier hat she said to her ? A. No, sir. Y never interested youself about that ? fo, r. Mary Dexter — -Sworn. Y are an aunt of Fanny Hyde? A. Yes. 0: the morning of the homicide of Wat- yo: was iu this factory' at work ? A. Q. Did you see Fanny that morning? A. Yes. Q. Did you observe anything in her actions that attracted your attention? A. Yes. • Q. State the first it was? A. I went and spoke to her up against the stove. Q. Was she standing or sitting ? A. Sitting. Q. What was she doing there? A. She seemed as though she was in a deep study. Q. What time of the morning was it ? A. As near as I can guess, I believe it was about eleven o’clock. Q. You spoke to her, what did you say? A. I remarked “ what an old dress she had on.” Q. What reply did she make? A. She said it was good enough for her. Q. What else? A. She said she wished she was dead. Q. Did you notice her face ? A. Yes. Q. What was her expression or appearance ? A. She had a wild appearance. Q. As to color ? A. Quite pale. Q. How long was she seated at the stove as you describe? A. May be fifteen minutes, as near as I can guess. Q. Did she use the words as you have given —“I wish I was dead ”—or were they preceded by an exclamation ? A. She said she wished she was dead, and I asked her what for; she said, “a good many things !” Q. Was this on the second or third floor? A. The third floor. Q. Was anything the matter with the closets on the third floor ; were they out of order that morning ? A. I’m sure I cannot tell; I don’t believe I went in that morning. Q. Do you know whether the plumbers were in there that morning ? A. I couldn’t tell. Q. Where did she go after she left the stove ? A. £ think she went to her work again at the table. Q. What time of the morning was this ? A. About eleven o’clock, as near as I can guess. Q. You were there when she left the room ? A. Yes. Q. What time was that, as near as you can recollect? A. About a quarter to twelve. Q. Do you recollect when she went to work for Watson ? A. Yes. Q. What was her condition as to health at that time ? A. Very good, as far as I see. Q. Do you know how old she was when she went to work for Watson? A. I believe she was about fifteen. Q. What was her physical appearance at the time the shooting as compared to what it was when she went to work for Watson ? A. A great deal of difference. Q. State in what respect ? A. She is not so stout as she was by a long way. Q. Did you notice after she went to work for Watson any change in any other respect? A. I don’t know whether I did ; she got very care¬ less about her work. Q. How was it with regard to her appear¬ ance ? A. She seemed to be more careless about herself. Q. Did you notice anything with regard to her disposition ? A. No, I think she was about the same. Q. Did you know her grandfather ? A. Yes, I lived in the house with him. 56 Q. How did he come to his death? A. Drowned. Q. What were his actions previous to that ? A. Some very curious actions. Q- Can you refer to any act particularly ? Objected to by Mr. BRITTON, on the ground that it is totally immaterial and irrelevant. I suppose the purpose is to show that there was in¬ sanity. I submit that we cannot test that ques¬ tion here in that way. He has drawn out some peculiar action which he is about to describe. If he had ever been declared to be insane in any legal or judicial sense it would be competent. It would be competent to prove it, perhaps, by experts, who knew him, and attended to him ; but I submit that we cannot try the question here whether her grandfather had become insane, and then try the question of particular acts indi¬ cating an unsound mind. The COURT.—The question is whether mat¬ ters happening in the family years ago, coming down through successive members of the family is evidence of anything happening now. If tradition ascribes the grandfather to be an in¬ sane man, the question is whether you can get that evidence in here. Mr. BRITTON.—If the question called for any such thing ; but the witness speaks of her own knowledge as his having died by drowning, and the question is, what were his acts before that. Mr. MORRIS.—We have a right to prove this back to the fourth and fifth generation ; any branch of the family, lineal or collateral. And it is no answer that that should be proved by an expert. We can take the opinion of any per¬ son. Upon this question I undertake to say that there has never been a case tried that the evidence on this point has not been gone into, and the Courts place great stress on that fact, and in charging juries have called their at¬ tention to this as one of the predisposing causes. The COURT.—I understand Mr. Britton not to object to your showing the state of mind of any of the ancestors or relatives of the prisoner, but that this witness may not be permitted to testify to anything in the career of the grand¬ father. Mr. MORRIS.—I am simply proving the fact that he was insane ; that is one of the issues to be submitted to the jury. Counsel says we can¬ not try that issue. Yes, we can ; that’s one of the issues we are trying here. The COURT, to Mr. Britton.—Do you object to the state of the mind of the grandfather at the time of his death? Mr. BRITTON.-No, sir. Mr. MORRIS.—It is for the jury to draw the inference. Mr. BRITTON.—It is the easiest thing in the world to get up and say, “ there never was a case.” and a thing “has not been done;” but that don’t establish the fact. Now I concede, as a matter of law, the pertinence of proof that the ancestors were insane, and if it is followed up to acts tending to show that the party him¬ self or herself was insane, it will be perfectly competent, because insanity is supposed to be hereditary ; but this is not the point. It is a totally collateral issue, sought to be fc< the statement of acts of this grandfather he was drowned, which came under | servation of this witness. Now I would b least, before your Honor decides on < question, to know how old this witnes and to show her capacity. The COURT.—Certainly ; bring that c limiuarily. Q. Where did her grandfather die? 1 ton, England. Q. How old were you when you resid* l with him. A. Nineteen. Q. How old were you when he died? V is eight years since he died. I was in thi t try when he died. Mr. BRITTON.—She swears that k from drowning ; that is hearsay. Do yo i it is competent ? Mr. MORRIS.—Certainly. Mr. BRITTON.—Then I move it be s.< out. The COURT.—It is competent to pre death in that way. By JUDGE MORRIS.—From what u of her grandfather, from his acts and p ances, what impression was made upo mind as to whether he was in his right 1 c not? Objection. A. I did not think he was. Mr. BRITTON.—I move to strike o, answer. The COURT. — Suppose Jfidge Morrisi his question, ‘ ‘ What was the belief in t ily as to the condition of his mind?” J object to that ? Mr. BRITTON.—I do, under this | facts. This man died, according to las ment, when she was here, several yea: I she left, WITNESS. — A little over eight years. , Mr. BRITTON.-She had been awa there eight years before he died. Now a question was, “What were the. indicalM insanity?” The question offers to pn peculiarities eight years before his death she was there. I urge this objection tl i strenuously, as it is totally impassible f t any way to meet such testimony as this. 1 the Court to hold the scales of justice . ruling equally, because there is no possi'i meeting any error on that subject Mr. MORRIS. — I don’t know, but It for granted that this prisoner is not to 1 because it might not be in the powei prosecution to contradict evidence that v ( She is to be tried on the facts and evideia evidence is not to be excluded because i in the power of the District Attorney top diet it. I have never heard such an mi in a case involving life and death not fi evidence is not competent, but that it slji excluded because “we have not the pH contradict it.” Mr. BRITTON.—I have not made jc argument or request. Mr. MORRIS.—That is the inference Honor is urged to exclude this question >i it is not in the power of the prosecution) 57 it it. That is one of the considerations sed to the Court. The counsel says it is >mpetent to prove the condition of the ather eight years prior to his death. I if I understand the rule on this question is : We have a right to prove a party in- •t any time, and when we have proven ct, the Law presumes that that condition ued until you prove it changed ; and if i ve that he was insane eight years before 1 th, the law presumes he continued insane the time of his death, until the contrary i/n. Why, how could we offer proof of c y on the part of any member of the fam- ?he Courts hold that you may prove it in 1 nch to any extent, and go back as far as p proper. Insanity may exist in the c ther, and may skip a generation, or two rions, and then reappear. But the object king insanity on the part of the parents f mdparents, is to show it exists in the c the prisoner as a predisposing cause, i r hich all the authorities, medical and :i attach great importance. It is simply fjf a fact, and we are not to follow that 5 le counsel suggests, and show that in- J as continued regularly along until it has u this person—by no means. We may e existed in any member of the family, w n we once have proved it to exist, we oven a predisposing cause. As to the L he jury will give to such testimony is at question. That will be left to them r e instruction of the Court. They can h e question and exercise their own judg- d common sense, and say the weight d ild be given to such kind of testimony, q stion is not to the weight of the evi- e, it as to its competency. I did not sup- t re would be any question upon this ’ ^ Court is in doubt, I can suspend >n oroduce the authorities after the recess. • LITTON.—Of course the Court will Ai nderstand me, whether the counsel or ot. I have not a word to say—one t< ard gainsaying all his statements so far " 1 to prove insanity is concerned. All m it shall be proved in a legal way. is 1. Now I submit that to ask this wit- 88 0 w hat her opinion is on those acts, iei ane or insane, is not competent. It rei tronger evidence in case of a homicide V 1 ' civil procedure. Calling a woman on w who saw the party eight years ago, irn y asking her a question whether or 1 1 ) opmion this prisoner’s grandfather e or not at that time, is a question 3 f |®pl and should not be put. URT —Suppose they should ask her t 8 by yellow fever, would that be B TTON.—I think not, if she had not **?! )r eight years. - JRT. She would be competent to re ave to marriages, deaths, and What¬ 'S: ln family tradition. . TTON.—Would it be competent to n ess whether her grandfather died of n d !f’ b a y m g r> tiled eight years ago in . ie being 3,000 miles away ? The COURT.—If it comes down by tradition —family history. This is a collateral ques¬ tion. Mr. BRITTON.—If there is any tradition in this question I am not able to see it. - The COURT.—On that ground, that tradi¬ tion is testimony, the Court will admit evidence of this character. Mr. MORRIS.—State the facts, or some of the facts, on which you base your opinion ? Objected to. Q. State the facts upon which you found that opinion or draw that inference ? Objected to. Admitted. A. I have known him to take laudanum— poison. Q. What was the understanding—do you know what it was taken for? A. No, sir. Q. What was the understanding in his fam¬ ily V Objected to and objection overruled. A. I suppose they thought he was going to poison himself. Q. Do you know of his having any connec¬ tion with a rope ? A. Yes ; I have known him to take it up stairs to hang himself with. Q. Have you ever known him to sleep with a butcher knife under his pillow ? A. Yes. Q. Was it not understood in the family that he was out of his mind ? Objection to the question as leading. Mr. MORRIS.—That is a proper objection. Q. Do you recollect the time Fanny went to Washington last spring? A. I know she did go to Washington. Q. Do you recollect the time it was ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know why she went to Washing¬ ton—for what purpose ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you see Watson in the room talking with her that morning ? A. Yes. Q. In what part of the room? A. At the table where they were working. Q. What time was that? A. I could not exactly say what time it was. Q. Was the machinery in operation at that time? A. Yes. Q. Could you hear any part of the conversa¬ tion ? A. No, sir. Q. The machinery in that room makes a very loud noise. J Cross-examination. Q. Were you examined on the coroner’s in¬ quest ? A. Yes. Q. Did you say anything about this remark you have testified to here of Mrs. Hyde’s on that day? A. No, sir; I was not asked that. Q- Were not you asked at the close of your evidence on that day to state any other fact that you knew of which had any bearing on this transaction ? A. Yes, may be I was. Q. You did not say this? A. No, sir. Q. Was it because you thought it had not any bearing on the case ? A. I am not sure; I could not tell; I did not think of it at the time. Q. Did you state on that examination that you saw Mrs. Hyde and Mr. Watson talking together just before this occurrence, as you 58 state now ? A. I could not say whether I did or not. Q. If you did not, why did not you state that there ? A. I was kind ol nervous then. I did not know hardly what I was saying. I was frightened, and didn’t remember all I ought to have said. Q. What time did you leave England? A. I have been here a little over eight years. Q. Where did your grandfather live ? A. In Boston. Q. What part of England? A. I am sure I cannot tell, a good ways from where I live. I lived at Nottingham before he went to Boston. Q. How long before you came here? A. Six months. Q. Did he have a family? A. Yes, but they did not live with him. They were all married but one. His wife had died two years before I came out. , Q. Whom was he living with ? A. I don t know, he was boarding at Nottingham. Were you and he boarding at the same place ? A. No, sir. Q. When did you live with him ? A. Up to the time I was married. Q. When was that? A. I have been married over fifteen years. Q, Then you lived with him down to the time you was married fifteen years ago? A. He kept house a long while after that. He lived close to us. Q. He lived by himself a long while after that and kept house; were some of his family with him ? A. Yes. Q. Where did he live at the time he took this laudanum ? A. Nottingham. Q. Did you live with him ? A. Yes. Q. How" long ago was that? A. Just before I was married. Q. How long before you was married did he take this laudanum? A. I cannot exactly state, a little before I was married. Q. Do you look upon laudanum as a sure poison? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know what quantity he took ? A. Four penorth, (penny-worth). Q. Did you see him take it? A. No, sir. Q. Did you ever of your own personal knowl¬ edge know' he took it? A. Yes, sir. Q. How do you know it ? A. Because he was found by two policemen. Q. How did you know that this particular ar¬ ticle caused him to be in that condition ? A. Because my mother sent to a drug store. Q. You don’t know yourself? A. No, sir. Q. All you know about it is what your mother to'ld you? A. Yes, I saw him next morning. Q. You have no knowledge of what he took excepting hearsay ? A. That’s all. Q. All you know' is that he was found in some condition unusual, by policemen, and it was told you that he had been taking laudanum ? A. Q. How about this knife under his head ; when did he sleep with this knife under his head ? A. After I was married. Q. Were you there at the time, so that you yourself know' anything about its being his head? A. I was not in the house. Q. All you know about that is that yoi some one speak of it? A. Yes, I hea mother say. Q. Then the next thing is about this you say he took this rope up stairs to has self, how do you know that ? A. I was Q. How do you know ? A. We seen 1 Q. Did you see him hang? A. No, fetched in the neighbors. He took it hook in the kitchen and took it up stairs Q. What next ? A. We sent for the bors. Q. What next, what did he do ? A know; I didn't follow him, Q. Did you see him there, up stairs, w rope ? A." No, sir. I was too scared to Q. How do you know he took it up saw' him. Q. How far ? A. A long flight of stai Q. You don’t know of your own kn< anything he did with the rope? No, sir Q. These are the things from which y dertake to say he was not in his right mi. Yes; a great many people said so. Q. Was he confined at home after tl affair, or after this laudanum affair, or i was found with a knife under his pillov sir: not to my knowledge. Q. He was put under no restriction? . sir. Q, That was six or eight years before t A. Yes, some of it. Q. Where was it that you understo; grandfather was found on this occasic taken up by the policeman ? A. A lit' from home. Q. How' far from home? A. The ^ place. Q. A public place ? A. Yes. J Q. In what condition was he fom? Leaning up against a wall. _ j Q. Do you think every man w'ho is fo # ing up against a wall has taken laudan l' I don't know'. By a JUROK.—This grandfather—vl the father’s side, or on the mothers! the prisoner ? A. On Fanny s father s 1 Q. What was his name ? A. Windl Q. Mr. BRITTON —When he w<; from his home to live by himself to B>,* he go alone ? A. Yes. Q. After that so far as you know el alone? A. Yes. vll Q. He lived there alone after he leM don't know. He went there just befo B to this country. December, eight yearflN Q. When do you understand he on Eight years ago next July. Q. Do you understand he died in after he went to Boston? A. No, I d| that I did. Q. How- long do you understand; there. A. I don't know, I am sine. Re-direct. Q. Do you recollect of any occasi* < 59 watching him to see that he did not injure self ? A. Yes, sir. Who ? A. My brother-in-law. : Was it not well understood in the family many years that he was not in his right I? [jected to. le COUET.—The form is objectionable. Re-cross. £ What was the understanding in the family the condition of his mind? A. They c stood he was not right. Q Do you know of your own’ knowledge il mur brother-in-law watched him ? A. I it. Re-direct. QWere these matters talked over by all the n: ? A. Yes. John Marr — Re-called. Q. ^ou were acquainted with Mr. Windley’s hi? A. Yes, sir. Q,hr how many years? A. Thirty years, (juror the last fifteen or twenty years of his o \ at was the understanding, if you know, oi his family and those acquainted with ai to the condition of his mind ? )§ cted to. Cl COUET—Is this witness a member of f lily ? A. I was br rnght up next house hi his father and mother lived next house m; ather and mother. We were all brought tc ther. ■?. rom what you have seen and know of n lat impression was made on your mind io lether he was in his right mind or not ? I Q. Did she say anything more than )(f had been the ruination of her and she b sU him ? A. I don’t remember any more. : ] Margaret Hyde — Sworn, t Q. Where do you reside ? A. Was’igW city. Q. Fanny's husband is your step-6c l ? a Yes. Q. How long have you known Fan) ? A Since November, 1871. I came on to vitf sons. They were married on the fith t May I was not aware they were married until ig(| Q. Personally, how long have you no* Fanny? A. From about the 7th of NoM« a year ago — 1870. Q. You visited her? A. I remaincjAi from Thursday, the 7th, until the next Su™| week — ten days. Q. Did you know the deceased, Mr. hts* A. I did. I was introduced to him on i my son’s house. Q. You saw him there at the house? evening, sir. Thursday and Friday, tdir® he went to Hartford and returned again 61 but I did not see him until Tuesday even- igain. Did Fanny come to Washington last ng? A. The first of April, a year ago. What was her object in visiting Washing- respect peculiar to married women ? A. Not in the way of family. Q. You merely say that her health was gen¬ erally delicate ? A. I can hardly say what I would like to say. ijected to. le COURT. — What is the relevancy of the tion? r. MORRIS.—It relates to her physical con- n. ie COURT.—If that is the point, let the 3ss be questioned upon her then condition. 1 What was the condition of her health ? be was in a very weak condition. Being i g, she was very delicate about seeing doctors. [ Did she visit any physicians in Washing- ] A. She did ; Dr. Elliott, President of the »cal Board of Washington. C Do you know what was the difficulty with r e jected to. Q. I call for your own knowl- £> A. I don’t know. C, Do you know ? A. I do know. I can’t r ularly word it. She was in a delicate a tion—a weak state. Q Do you mean to say you don’t like to ? i>, sir. Q How long did she remain there with you ? ! e came on the first of April and left on 3 entieth. Q Do you know how she came to leave so ">i A. I do ; by a letter from her husband. Q f was in consequence of a letter that she ■e >d ? A. To return to New Britain. Q How did that seem to affect her ? A. h< she received the letter she cried bitterly, tsl 1 her the cause. Q. Vhen she left Washington was she suffer- ? : m this ailment? A. She was. Q. s Dr. Elliott your family physician ? A. > irjiot. ifhat did you say he was connected with ? I is President of the Medical Board of vsl tgton. hide you were visiting your son, did you *r !r. Watson speak of Fanny ? A. I did, , t ne. i- Tat did he say ? It ;ted to the declarations of the deceased. }■ here was Fanny ? A. She was around 1 r n about her work in the adjoining room at, 3n, they called it. He told me that he cd iat girl ; she was passing, fr BRITTON.—Were these declarations de her presence ? A. Yes. i- here she could hear them ? A. Yes; it ulc ie impossible not to unless said in a isf, l■ ! did not whisper ? A. No ; he spoke w is you now r speak. *bj ;ion renewed and question withdrawn. Cross-examination. 1 len you used the expression that you th she was in a “ delicate condition,” do m a in a technical sense ? A. I can hardly res ayself. !■ - you refer to any condition in any Re-direct. Q. You refer to an ailment usual to her sex? A. Yes. Re-cross. Q. Was anything said by her while she was with you indicating that there was w’rong in her pre¬ vious conduct? A. No, sir. She only made this remark, that there was a curse hanging over her. She says : “I feel that there is a curse hanging over me,” and that is why Wat¬ son wanted to take her to New Britain. Q. Was anything said which indicated to your mind that there had been anything wrong in her conduct previous to that time ? A. No, sir. Q. How long was this after marriage ? A. They were married in May. I did not see the girl until November 6th. Then she visited me in April. It was a year, nearly. Her husband went away on the 15th. On his return to New York he wrote the letter for her to come imme¬ diately back. Q. Nearly a year after her marriage ? A. Yes. Q. From May to the following April? A. Yes. Ellen Curley—Sworn for the Defend¬ ants. ( Re-called.) Mr. BRITTON.—We called this witness and rested. You must examine her in the direct. The COURT.—It don’t matter materially, probably. Mr. MORRIS. —You say you first saw Fanny at the first flight of stairs or head of the stairs. Is not this your statement before the coroner on that subject ?— “ When I got to where she was found she was moaning, and she said to me ”- Objected to that. That is no cross-examina¬ tion. You have no right to ask such a question. Secondly, he has no right to ask the question in that form. I do not understand you can cross-examine after a party has rested. Mr. MORRIS.—The counsel has just cross- examined a witness, on which he had cross- examined and rested. Mr. BRITTON.—He has no right to ask her that question except in contradiction of some¬ thing previously said. The COURT.—Is it proposed to contradict? Mr. BRITTON.—It is because he don’t pro¬ pose to contradict; that is the reason why he asks the question. The COURT.—Put the question to her as to whether she recollects any expressions of Mrs. Hyde on that occasion. Mr. MORRIS.—State what she was doing? A. She was kicking the door and wringing her hands, moaning. 62 Q. What did she say to you ? A. She asked me to go into the shop and tell the men to come out. Q. Did not you knock at the door ? A. Yes. Q. She was by the door when you first saw her ? A. Yes. The COURT.—Was this moaning and wring¬ ing before or after the shooting ? A. After. Q. State the manner of her w'ringing her hands and moaning—was it loud? Could it have been heard at a distance ? A. No, sir ; it was not loud. Q. Have you now stated all that occurred there ? A. Yes. Mr. BRITTON.—Did you hear any body call¬ ing up stairs. A. No, sir. Q. Did you see anybody before you saw her ? A. No, sir. Q. Where did you first see her ? A. At the head of the first flight of stairs. Q. When you went tow'ard the door ? A. Yes. Q. Who went to the door first, you or she ? A. She was standing at the time at the door at the head of the first flight of stairs, kicking. Then I knocked at the same door. Mrs. Sarah Windley — Sworn. Q. You are the step-mother of Fanny ? A. Y’es, sir. Q. Do you recollect when she went to work for Mr. Watson? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long did she continue to live home where she went to work ? A. Just about a year. Q. What was her physical condition when she went to work for Watson? A. Very good. Q. During the latter part of the time when she was at home, did you notice any change in her health, her physical condition ? A. Yes. Q. Can you state whether there was, at periods, anything unusual in her physical condi¬ tion, towards the latter part of the time she was home ? A. There was. Q. After she left home, how long was it be¬ fore you saw her again ? A Certainly four or five months. Q. What was her physical condition then? A. A great deal thinner to what she was when she first went to work to Mr. Watson’s. Q. Fallen away in flesh ? A Yes. Q. Had she lost her color ? A. Yes. Objected to as leading. The COURT. •— State the indications of change in her appearance ? Q. Did you notice anything indicating a change in her health—if so describe it. A. She was a great deal more delicate looking ; a great deal thinner ; had lost a great deal of flesh. Q. As to color. A. She had no color at all. Q. How was her condition when she went to M atson’s, as to color. A. Much like her sister 1K, w. — (A young lady beside the prisoner, in court, of about sixteen years of age, and of ru¬ bicund and healthful appearance.) Q. This sister here ? A. Yes. 2fo cross-examination. John Windley — Sworn. : : an ; Q. You are the father of Fanny ? A. Y< Q. Where was she bom ? A. In Netting m Q. What is her age now ? A. Eighteen at September. Q. How old was she when she came tc country ? A. A little over ten years of agi Q. Did she come out with you or afterwi A. Afterwards. Q. When did her mother die ; how old she ? A. She was four years old whet mother died. Q. Who came to this country with her i Her stepmother, brother, and sister. Q. Where did you live when you came t im country ? A. I was living at Fordhan m.j went to keep house comer of Yariek and Ink. lin streets, N. Y. Q. Did you say how long you came ’«([ she did ? A. I left the 6th of Februai they left the 25th of October following. Q. Where did she go to work after she from the old country ? A. To A. P. Bachi 103 Franklin street, New York. Q. How long was that after she cann Only a few days ; I was working there time myself, on hair nets. Q. Then she was from ten to eleven y< age ? A. Y’es. Q. For whom did she work next ? A. i Man, the person who has been examined. Q. Who else did she work for? A] John Slack, Brooklyn ; then there was other places where she went to nurse an baby, and tend a little girl for a week o| she didn’t stay long there ; then she w I work for Mr. Thompson, 22 Frankfort New York. Q. How steadily has she been in empl since’she came to this country 7 to the time occurrence ? A. Constantly employed time. Q. Before she came to this country, schools had she attended ? A. Evening t- Day School, and Sunday School. Q. How long had she attended Day an A. My position at Nottingham did no'* me to keep the children regularly at scl) I ought to have done ; I was poor in oc stances and as soon as they were old erj had to send them to work, as soon ai able to do it. Q, How old was she when she commeji work ? A. Eight years of age. Q. She has worked steadily from that a this ? A. Yes. Q. Did she attend school at New Y'oii Y’es ; evening school. Q. Did she receive any recognition f| conduct ? A. She did. Q. What ? A. She received two dip! first two years. Q. What Sunday Schools has she at' A. The school in Hudson street and tin Duane street, New York, and when New York to come to Brooklyn, she the Primitive Methodist School, in in street. 63 ; How has she been in her attendance in i;e street? A. Pretty regularly. ; Was she in the habit of going out, except cnpany with yourself and family. A. No, n no case whatever. ; You were very strict with her, were you : A. Yes, sir. j Yre not you rather strict with your chil- s- 1 A. Yes, sir ; more strict than I would neon if their own mother bad been alive ; t3 correcting of my children has been done )■ since their mother died J Fanny is your oldest daughter? A. Yes. j Do you recollect the time she went to work r. Watson ? A. Yes, sir. } Do you remember how long she remained i after that ? A. As near as I can recollect, p ild be about twelve or thirteen months. 3 How old was she when she went to r for Watson ? A. It will be a little over j<. 3 What was her physical condition then ? 1 very good health ; seldom had any sick- s ). luring the latter part of the time she re- a .1 home, did you notice any change in t irticular ? A. Yes ; I noticed a material e !, both in manners and in health. |. lad she lost flesh ? A. Yes ; I noticed >e flesh and her health declined at the le ime. i.'Vhat sort of complexion had she ? A. A rtf red complexion when she went to work hi. i. 'id you notice anything in regard to per- a rppearance, otherwise, as to dress, etc. V11; I noticed she did not exercise that i out her dress, and did not seem to be i< as she had been previously ; she seemed g v more careless ; I remarked it to her nj. . ow long after she left home before you 1' again ? A. As near as I can judge, it il ie about two and a half months. . 'hat was her condition, then? A. She a ;red from her former appearance. I saw r >reat change in her. . 'hat was your age when you came to this a 1 ? A. I should be 30 years of age ; I am • ow old were you when you left your e: house? A. About 17. . ere you in the habit of seeing him up ae ime you came to this country. A. Yes, e less ; I lived some distance from there, u 1 to see him frequently for all that. • i aw was he regarded by his family and f iquainted with him as to the condition is ind. r. HUTTON.—I object to that question; r - nor has limited it to members of the |M r- f ORRIS.—Well, then, members of the 1} Do you know how he came to his h, om what you have beard from members 'e mily. A. Yes. 4 w? t>j; ed to—Objection overruled. • drowned himself. Q. Was it considered by the family that he was not in his right mind ? Objected to as to competency, and as leading. The COURT.—The form is objectionable. Q. What w r as the understanding in that respect ? A. That he was not entirely in his right senses. Q. Where did you remove to when you first came to Brooklyn ? A. Flushing Avenue. Q. Near what street? A. Between Vander¬ bilt and Clermont. I moved from there between Oxford and Portland. Q. Do you know where Watson boarded at that time? A. I do not. Q. Was it not in his house where you lived ? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know whether it was in Williams- burgh or not? A. I believe it was in Williams- burgh. Q. Do you know where the primitive Method¬ ist church was in Bridge street? A. Yes. Q. How far was that from where you lived in Vanderbilt Avenue ? A. About fifteen min¬ utes walk. Q. How long did you live there ? A. Nearly two years. Q. Your daughter resided there with you a part of the time? A. Yes, sir, with the excep¬ tion of a week or two. Then she went to nurse a baby or something of that kind. q>. Where did you move to when you left Flushing Avenue ? A. Corner of Marcy Avenue and Rodman Street, Williamsburgh. Q. After you moved there did Fanny attend the Bridge street Methodist Church ? A. Occa¬ sionally, not regularly. It was a long distance, and if it rained I would much rather she stayed at home than go. Q. Do you know where Mr. Watson resided at that time when 3you lived there in Marcy Avenue? A. Yes; I believe he lived in Wilson Street with a person named Roche. Q. How.far was that from where you lived? A. About seven blocks. Q. After Fanny went to work with Mr. Watson did you notice any change in her dis¬ position? A. Yes; she did not seem to pay that attention to my requests that she previ¬ ously had done in former times. If I requested her to do anything before, she would do it with a good will which she did not after that time. Q. Can you state whether or not she became more fretful ? A. I cannot state as to her fret¬ ting. I noticed one thing in particular, she got considerably more irritable in temper. A very little thing would make her excited. Q. Do you recollect the time she went to Washington? A. Yes. Q. Did you see her when she returned from Washington ? A. Yes. Q. How soon after ? A. She came right home. Q. How long did she remain there before she went to New Britain? A. A very short time. Q. Do you know how long she remained in New Britain ? A. No, sir, I cannot tell; a week or two. Q. About when did she return from New 64 Britain ? A. It was some few weeks after the last 4th o ' July. Cross-examined. Q. You say that Fanny grew paler and thinner as she grew older ? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever ask her any cause for this ? A. No, sir, I did not. Q. Did you ever hear her state to any one any cause for this growing thinner as you have described? A. No, sir. Q. Had you any reason to know what the cause was for growing thinner at that time; any special reason. A. No special reason? I had no reason for supposing what the direct cause was. Q. Had you any reason to suppose at that time that Watson had anything to do with it ? A. No, sir. Q. How long after she left your house was it before she got married ? A. About two months. Q. Did you know her husband before they were married? A. No, sir. Q. Not at all? No, sir. Q. Where were they married? A. I believe they were married in Myrtle avenue. Q. You had no knowledge of it ? A. No, sir ; I had no knowledge that she was going to be married. Q. You never had seen him before? A. No, sir. Q. How soon after you understood they were married did you see him ? A. I believe'it was two weeks. Q. Where did you see him ? A. He came to my house one Sunday. Q. W hen did you learn they were married ? A. About two days afterward. Q. From either of them ? A. Yes. Q. Which one ? A. From Fanny. Q. Did she give you any reason why she mar¬ ried hi m without your knowledge ? A. She did not. Q. Did you ask her? A. No, sir. Q. You did not take much interest in it? A. I took a great deal of interest in it. Q. You did not ask her why? Why did not you ask her why she got married without your knowledge and consent ? A. I did not wish to at the time, because it was in the shop at work. Q. Why did you not at home ? A. Because her husband was with her. Q. \ ou did see her when her husband was not with her ? A. Not until some time after. Q. Did you ever ask her why she got married without vour knowledge and consent? A. Never. Q. You did see her alone? A. Yes. Q. Then you did not ask her ? A. No. Q. Do you know why ? A. No, I don’t. Q. Did you ask anybody ? A. No. Q. Was there any cause as a father why you should not make inquiry on that subject*? ' A. Because I thought if she had married and made her bed she had better lie in it Q. You thought if she had made a bed she had better he in it ? A. Yes. Q. That is all the interest you had in it ? A. Yes. Q. Why did she leave your house at the time she stated ? A. Well, she got very careless in her dress for some reason. I began to qu ic her on the subject, and spoke to her very o about it Q. She left because you and she did not!« A. Not entirely. Q. What other cause ? A. There was a : o circulated around, and it came to my ears, \ intimacy existing between her and Mr. W « I broached the subject to her ; but at th ii I set it down as a piece of malicious t circulated around by a man I was at va n with at the time. I did not pay any regl to it; I took it to be a malicious report bjj but for all that I mentioned the subj Fanny. I brought it around in a gentl j of way as I could, without being positive Q. What did you say to her? A. Yl don’t know the exact words I made use o: she got very excited. Q. You in substance asked her if it w m if there was any intimacy between her am» son ? A. I gave her to understand that 1 1 this report. Q. What answer did she make? A. S very excited and told me she was old eno take care of herself. That was abou t months before she got married. Q. That is all the conversation you ev with her on the subject ? A. Yes. Re-direct. Q. Did you have any conversation witlra son on the subject of that report ? A. I > L Q. What did he say ? Objected to, as Watson’s mouth is clod, death. The COURT.—Statements made in pie« of the accused? Q. She was not present when yon sp it, for you have had me?" A. No, sir. Q. What was it ? A. I told my husband he followed me up and down. Q. Did you ever tell anyone else of thi n maey between you and Watson ? A. No. •• 67 \ You had companions, didn’t you ; young friends before you were married ? A. No ■than the girls in the shop and girls in the . y School; I never had a constant com- ji. .You had charge of the establishment— M of the girls there before Mr. Watson’s A. Yes, sir. What was your compensation? A. Ten h a week. ; What pay did the other girls receive ? A. 1 1 know certain ; Fanny Kelly received $7. Did you have any words with Mr. Wat- 1 the day of his death, in the forenoon, ! neighborhood of eleven o’clock, in the A. I had words with him in the mom- , Did he make any accusation against you : t occasion ? A. He was always accusing c going with other men. .Did he then? A. Yes, sir. .Did he likewise accuse you of being with :(me when you were down stairs that fore- i A. Yes, sir. , Did you have any words with him beyond i, n that occasion ? A. No, sir. . What time of day was that and where ? I was in the morning ; I could not state V what time ; it was in the shop. . _t was after you had been down stairs and i Sack again ? A. Yes, sir. . Ynd in the shop the noise of the machi- > fould naturally prevent the language being rby others, if you talked? A. Yes, unless Iked very loud and was very close to him. , What was the last occasion before Wat- rieath that you were intimate with him? 5 nday night, , What day was he killed ? A. Friday. , tou don’t mean to say you did not have l rnrse with your husband ? A. Of course m. • Did you have any intercourse while in Britain? A. No, sir. . Did you have improper intimacy with )i;s while you were in New Britain? A. I did not. . )id you go to his room while you were i in the night, from your own? A. No, Be-dired. t MORRIS.—Your husband was there all tile? A. Yes, sir. • ’ou slept with him every night ? A. Yes. . Yhen you w r ent into the room up stairs in illiamsburgh factory and spoke to your 1at the time Mrs. Gleason speaks about, t id you say ? BRITTON.—Wait a moment. The coun- austed the direct examination. We have *V j very few questions in the cross-examina- ■ Now he returns to the direct examina- • He should have exhausted her before he e He ought not to be permitted to find 3 extent of the cross-examination and i Jturn to the direct. That is hardly al- i f under the circumstances. ] MORRIS.—It would be remarkable to have so technical a ruling. It is in the power and discretion of the court. The COURT.—It is usual to allow counsel to resume the direct or cross within reasonable bounds. In a case like this we will not restrict either side in the exercise of that privilege—or right, if it be a right. Mr. BRITTON.—The purpose in this case was to examine in chief briefly to see how far I would pursue the cross-examination, and then return to the chief. The COURT.—I do not feel at liberty to rule against Judge Morris within reasonable limits. You have a right to return to the cross-examin¬ ation. Q. What did you say to your mother when you went in the room up stairs ? A. I asked her if I could go into the private room. Q. Were the plumbers at work ? A. Yes. Q. What was your object in purchasing the pistol ? A. I bought it to give to my husband as a New Year’s present. Mr. BRITTON.—I object to the counsel ask¬ ing a few questions and then resting on his ex¬ amination in chief. I will not say it was in¬ tended to see how far I would bring out these other facts on this cross-examination so as to bind me thereby, but it is fair to presume when he returns to these material questions afterwards, that the purpose was to lay that kind of a trap. I cannot designate it in any other way. The COURT.—You have not fallen into it, Mr. BRITTON.—I know I have not. Hav¬ ing failed in that, he proposes to return to the charge. He should be held to the attempt he has made. It is not just under the circumstan¬ ces of the case to permit the counsel to ask these questions in chief. He rests and then goes back to more important issues of the case, so far as this particular testimony is concerned. Mr. MORRIS.—This is a most remarkable exhibition. I venture to say it has never been excelled. The COURT.—The counsel had not deter¬ mined how far to go on her testimony on the main issue. The Court do not feel inclined to limit the license of counsel. They have a duty to perform to their client. The Court do rot feel at liberty to restrict them on this ques'i^mi —at this time at all events. Q. You say you purchased this pistol to make a present of it to your husband. Had your husband spoken on the subject of having a pis¬ tol, and do you know what induced him to ? A. Yes, sir ; there had been two or three per¬ sons robbed, and my husband said he would like to have one in the house in case they should break into our house. Q. How near New Year’s was it ? A. A week after New Year’s. Q. Why was it not purchased before New Year’s ? A. Because I had to pay my rent that month and had none to spare. Q. You had intended to present him a New Year’s present ? A. Yes, sir. Q. When you took this pistol on the morning of this occurrence had you any intention of shooting anybody? A. No, sir ; I had not. Q. What time was it you left the room that 68 morning to come out ? A. About a quarter to twelve. Q. When you were informed you could not get in the closet there did you go down stairs ? A. Yes. Q. When you returned up stairs, where did you meet Watson? A. I did not go in the shop. I knocked at the door ; the machinery was going and they could not hear me. It was near twelve o’clock. I thought I would go back and come down again at twelve aiclock, when the door would be open. Q. When you went up stairs where did you meet Watson? A. At the top of the stairs? Q. Did you know he was there before you got up ? A. I saw him there before I went up the stairs. I asked him if he was going down stairs. He said no ; he had to go back for something. I thought he had gone in ; when I got to the top of the stairs he seized hold of me—at the top of the second flight. Q. In what manner did he seize hold of you ? A. In a very indecent manner. Q. Did he say anything? A. Yes; but I could not recollect the words. He wanted me to go to a room outside somewhere. Q. State the manner in which he spoke ? A. He said I should come with him. Q. At that time you had the pistol in your hand ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you take any aim? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know how you shot? A. No, sir. Q. This was right near the door leading into the room ? 4. Right near the door leading into the little hall where the other doors lead into. Q. When he seized hold of you and said you should go out with him, did you try to break loose ? A. Yes ; we had quite a struggle ; I got free from him, and he seized me the second time. Q. After this was done you did not make any attempt to get away ? The COURT.—After the shooting, what did you do ? A. I do not recollect what was done. Q. Did Mr. Watson ever follow you to Sun¬ day School ? A. Yes. Q. Where did you live at that tune? A. I believe I was boarding. Q. Where? A. At Mrs. Shea’s. Q. Where did Watson live? A. He lived with Mrs. Roche, corner of Rush street and Wythe avenue. Q. How often did he follow you down to Sunday School ? A. I could not say whether twice or how many times. Q. Did you ever hear Mr Watson say whether he had studied medicine ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he say what he was giving you those medicines for ? A. Yes, sir. Q. To bring on your periods ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did that occur frequently ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You saw Dr. Elliott in Washington? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he prescribe for you ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he give you medicine ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What has been your health compared to what it was before you went to Watson’s? A. There has been a great deal ol difference. Q. Did you suffer much pain from tho dif- Acuities you have spoken of? A. Yes, si Q. You are not near as fleshy as you A. No, sir. Mr. Morris here said to the Court he d rm think of anything else upon which to ex Jg the witness ; that there might be a single w tion that had escaped his memory. The COURT.—The statute gives the pn» the right to go on the stand and testify i hi own behalf. I should be loth to restricjj right as long as counsel think necessary 1 on. I think it w'ould be wrong in the CcIt exclude anything she may have to say. I not think the Court is at liberty further t! if restrict the consumption of time within r too able bounds. Re-c ross-exam ination. Q. How long did you know r your hu ui before you were married? A. Two ora* months. Q. How long were you on intimate (■ with him before you were married? Hmol did he pay attention to you as a suitoi k Two or three months. Q. During that two or three months din have any improper connection with Mr fl son? A. Yes. Q. How often ? A. I cannot say. Q. Many times or few during that p od A. It was not so very many times. Q. How soon after you were married d j« first have intimacy with Mr. Watson ? l . could not recollect exactly how soon. He 91 to follow me again within three days aftei 1 Q. How soon after did you have thill macy with him ? A. It may have beet! months. Q. It might have been longer than one id —might have been two? (No answer.) Q. On the morning of this occurrence, t time he accused you of being with other pil whom did he specify ? A. Mr. Potts. Q. Anybody else ? A. No, sir. Q. Did he call you names or epithets o lty occasion ? A. Yes, sir. He said I was nail but a prostitute and whore, and I shoi f! with him. Q. When you were inside the room, fii you went out in the hall? A. He verjlfl said that. Q. I am speaking of that particular nniijl before you got out in the hall. When yc«i before that he charged you with beinjra other men, did he call you any opproi® epithets? A. He said I whored with h® and would not with him. Q. Did he say that likewise out on Qxtii —outside? A. No, sir; he said that Ik shop. He used the language that I wm-’i thing but a prostitute and a whore, and ill should go with him.” Q. That was the time you had the infill with him before the pistol was fired? A. ® Q. How did you happen to have the J** with you on that day ? A. He had abut! ■ 69 (3 day before, and I took it intending to ]en him. i Was it loaded? A. Yes. i Did you know it was loaded? A. Yes. \ How many charges were in the pistol at t ,ime to your knowledge ? A. One, I is. [,ire you sure of that? A. Yes, sir; I (3 that was all. i Did not your husband subsequently fire bse shots after the shooting? A. Not that rtware of. [ How many times did you shoot on that ion? A. Only once, to my knowledge. [. ifou took the pistol how many days before ? (i.ly this day. (You took it on that day for the purpose of fining him? A. Yes. [Where did you have it about you? A. In Isom. [Was it cocked when it was in your bosom 3 , ready for firing? (Showing.) A. Not t arn aware of. [You did not do it when you put it there— pt carry it that way to your knowledge ? 1 , sir. [While this conversation was going on nn you and Watson this pistol was in r osom ? A. Yes. [With which hand did you take it out? I on’t recollect that. [Was it immediately after the use of this g ge which you have described that you II the pistol ? A. I don’t recollect when h it or how I shot it. iYou recollect only what occurred before .. I recollect some. There was a good 1 at I don't recollect. [. low long do you think you talked with i A. I cannot say. ). 'our or five minutes ? A. I don’t know l !an you give us some idea ? A. I could i eietly say how long it was. I )id you intend to shoot Mr. Watson on t casion? A. No, sir, I did not. ). 'ou had no such intention ? A. No, sir. j. >id you intend to hit him? A. No, sir; id ot take aim at all. [Was it your purpose to shoot him? A. ! . I■ /hat did you cock the pistol for ? A. I I’tpcbllect what for. [• 'o you mean to say you don’t recollect oi g at all? A. No, sir; I don't recollect v was done. i- 'o you recollect shooting at all ? A. No, l- o you mean to say now that you have n illection that you shot him at all ? A. n illection that I shot him ? i- es. A. I do not know how I done it. i- o you mean to say that you have no re- lei on that you fired this pistol on that asi? A. No, sir; I have no recollection v went off. I have no recollection of it at l did not ask if you recollected how you id The question I asked you is, do you recollect the fact of its being fired? A. No, sir, I don’t. Q. That you mean to testify to ? A. Yes. Q. When did you first recollect anything after that? A. I could not say how long it was. Q. Where were you ? A. In the shop; Aunt Mary’s shop. Q. Did you hear Mrs. Dexter testify as to a remark made by you ? A. Yes, sir. Q. That was after you went up stairs ? A. I don’t recollect saying it. Q. You were considerably excited, were you not ? A. I don’t know as I was. Q. Where do you say you was when you first recollected about this thing ? A. In the shop. Q. Did you then recollect that you had shot this pistol? A. No, sir; I did not. Q. Where was the pistol, where did you see it next ? A. At the station house. Q. You saw it next at the station house ? A. Yes; my husband gave it to Capt. Woglom. Q. Have you any recollection where they got it? A. No; I have no recollection how they got it, or that I gave it up. Q. Had you practiced with that pistol before this shot was made ? A. No, sir. Q. You had not practiced at all ? A. No, sir. Q. Not fired at all? A.-No, sir. Q. Do you know anything about your brother going where it was bought to inquire how to use it? A. Yes; he went the same night it was bought. Q. How came he to go ? A. He had the pis¬ tol and did not know how to work it; neither I, my husband, nor my brother. Q. How do you know you did not know how to work it unless you tried? A. They tried. Q. Who tried? A. My husband and my brother. Q. In your presence ? A. Yes. Q. Where? A. In my kitchen; I was getting supper ready. A. It was not loaded in the kitchen? A, No, sir. Q. Where did you go after you left these premises before you went to the Fifth Precinct Station house? A. No where; we went right from the building to the station house. Q. How long was it from the time of this fir¬ ing until you went to the station house ? A. I don’t know. Q. How did you happen to go to the station house? A. I went along with my husband, father and brother. Q. How did you come to decide on going ? A. I do not know. Q. You remember going there? Do you re¬ member where you started from ? You say yon remained on the premises; where did you start from to go to the station house? A. From the shop. Q. How did you happen to start from the shop ? What led to your going to the station house ? A. I wanted to give myself up. Q. Did anybody suggest to you the propriety of giving yourself up ? No, sir; not that I re¬ collect. 70 Q. It was your own act? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did not your husband or brother suggest to you you bad better go to the station bouse and give yourself up? A. Not that I recol¬ lect. Q. It was your own act ? A. Yes, sir. Q. You went on your own vobtion ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know where the pistol was when you started? A. No, 6ir. Q. Had you any conversation between the time of this shooting and the time you started to go to the station house with anybody about the shooting? A. Not that I can recollect. Q. Nothing had been said to you and you said nothing to anybody on that subject? A. Not that I know of. Q, From what room in these premises did you start to go to the station house? A. Down in the room we had been working in; my aunt and uncle’s. Q. When you started, was anybody there ex¬ cept your brother, husband and father? A. I don’t know. Q. Do you remember seeing anybody when you started? A. No, sir; I don’t recollect. Q. Do you remember what was said at the station house when you got there? A. No, sir; I could not remember exactly. Q. Do you remember you said anything ? • A. Yes, sir; I did say something. Q. To whom did you say it? A. To Capt. W oglom. Q. Did you say anything to the Sergeant who was sitting back of the desk? A. I don’t re¬ collect. Q. When you got to the station house and stated this matter to Capt Woglom, did you say this: that you had known Mr. Watson for nearly three years, that he had seduced you and followed you from that time to this, almost steady ? Did you say that in substance ? A. I might have said it. Q. Did you also say that you had been an¬ noyed by him in the shop, the street, and in your house ? A. I believe I did. Q. Did you also say that the night before the day of the shooting you had quarrelled with Mr. Watson? A. Not to my recollection. Q. Did you say you had quarrelled with him on that day? A. I was quarrelling continually; the day before and morning before. Q. Did you say to him that you had quar¬ relled with Watson on that day? A. I don’t recollect. Q. Did you say to him that you had quar¬ relled with him the night before ? A. I don’t recollect. Q. Did you say he had abused you and called ' you a whore and accused you of going with other men ? A. I don’t recollect; I was very much excited, I suppose. Q. See if you recollect that; that’s all I desire to know ? A. I don’t recollect, Q. Do you recollect then adding—so that you “ could not stand it any longer,” and that you “shot him for satisfaction?” A. I don’t recollect saying that. Q. Have you talked with your brother about this matter since ? A. N o, sir. Q. Did you talk to him before about: 1 No, sir. Q. Did you talk with him at all abi > matter, from the time you bought the down to the time the shot was fired ? sir. Q. Never talked with him about it?—1 did you get this pistol from when you | that day and put it in your bosom ? A.' my bureau drawer. Q. It was in your bureau drawer ? A i Q Do you know where your brother i. A. No, sir. Q. Do you know whether he is in th a A. I don’t know where he is ; I don’t; whether he is in the city or not. Q. Have you seen him since ? A. No Mr. MORRIS.—He will be on hand aij you desire him. Mr. BRITTON.—I have desired him i last two months. Mr. MORRIS.—He will be on hand i| vou would like to trv him. Mr. BRITTON.—I would like to tl now ; it has cost me a good deal of m i try to find him. Mr. MORRIS.—He will be on hand you are ready. Q. All the difference you had with i that day grew out of the statement yc! made here about going with other me' No, sir. Q. The conversational difference ? ’ sir. Q. Was there any difference that oi between you and Watson on that day tl. have not detailed ? A. He wanted me tel to a room with him. Q. Anyt hin g more than you have i A. No, sir. Q Mr. Watson, you said, had been! habit of giving you medicine ? A. Yes. 1 Q. How did he know when these timel did you inform him, or did he keep tra < himself ? A. He kept track of it himseh The Court here renewed to the juis caution of the previous days and adjoin the next day. FOURTH DAY. a cfl On the opening of Court, Mr. BB said : If the Court please, I regret to si I have to say, if this trial proceeds, am r deem to be in discharge of my official cjd is simply to call the attention of the ( if the fact which has come to my knowledj one of the jurors on this panel, Mr. R‘ I mention the name because it is jus* as well as to myself, — took occasion, li to say to another person — I t hink one other jurors — after the case was adjoi in his judgment any man who would girl not over fifteen years of age ougl shot. It is not necessary for me to f thing with reference to the impropriety 71 mark, pending the trial, before it is half .i ed. But, notwithstanding, I cannot re- dfrom saying something on that subject, if a be the fact, which I hope it is not, yet the I'c nation came to me in such a way that I a not by any possibility ignore it, as a pub- ilcer. I felt it more gravely that such a ark should be made, because, relying on i mor and the integrity of this juror, know- gje was a client of the learned counsel on 3 her side, I did not object, having confi- n, as I still have, in the honor and integrity 1; action at the conclusion of the case. I\ MORRIS.—I don’t know the object of e ounsel’s remarks, not having heard any g stion. 5 BRITTON.—The object in calling the eion of the Court was that the Court might gsst to the jury the impropriety of such re¬ in, pending the trial, and avoid them in ; and the further object is to state that, r understanding, that course of procedure c itrary to law, and it would be proper to Cfproceedings after the trial with reference i I have no feeling with reference to the itr except that this trial should be conducted ri and justly by all parties engaged in it, at at its conclusion, whatever the result roe, we all may readily acquiesce, ti MORRIS.—I suppose there was a pur- s n making the statement; but I am inclined tnk the purpose was different from that in- 3: d by the counsel. Now when the jury a impanneled the Court will bear me wit- s:! was not the party challenging. Most of anusiness in this case was done by the pros- n m—I undertake to say to a greater extent h ever has been done in any case in this eu where a party has been placed on trial for e. The counsel refers to Mr. Rowan. I v never done any business for Mr. Rowan 'f life, nor have our relations been at all n than friendly. I believe my partner did n ime or another draw a lease for Mr. >vn; I believe he did some time or another, h that juror was called that was indicated, d 10 suggestion was made by counsel or re- e that the juror stand aside, because the ;t hat the partner with whom I am engaged siness now, some time previous had done n trifling act was too absurd and ridiculous l ice as having any influence. But no sug- si n was made by counsel; and, I submit, if e ourt please, the making that suggestion iv 3 not for a proper purpose, and not in the o r discharge of official duty, at this stage d nder such circumstances. 1 BRITTON.—These remarks are wholly ic .ed for by the defendant’s counsel. I do >t old my official conduct for him to review, 'l' o I mean to follow in the tracks he has M«id out before me. I have not complained 1 s juror in any sense. As a matter of fact, ic pted him and relied upon his honor. But hi I said I had a right to say in order to a against like circumstances hereafter. I a not arise here to def end my motives from P ion of counsel; and it is not for me to g ; ,3t to the Court nor counsel on the other it hat that remark by him was made under circumstances entirely improper and contrary to the admonition of the Court already given the jury. The COURT.—There is no motion before the Court. Each juror impanneled on the case has been sworn to render a verdict according to the law and the evidence. Their communi¬ cations with each other are strictly privileged. and until they themselves commit a breach of that privilege the Court has no jurisdiction over the jury. There being no motion before the Court the examination of witnesses will proceed. Mr. ROWAN (the juror).—I did not under¬ stand exactly what the District Attorney said. Did I understand him to say that I said to a juror on this panel that I thought that— Mr. BRITTON (interrupting).—I understood it to be to another juror. I am not certain of that. The COURT.—That the juror named said to another juror, “that any man who seduced a girl fifteen years of age ought to be shot. ” That is an abstract proposition, and may or may not have any application to the facts of this case, The facts are yet to be determined from the evidence to come in as well as that which has been put in. Mr. MORRIS.—As the Court has very prop¬ erly and justly remarked that w r as—as stated by the District Attorney — a communication from a fellow juror, considered to be privileged. A more fitting rebuke could not come from the Court. Mr. ROWAN](the juror).—I will state for the information of the District Attorney that I have no knowledge of making any such assertion to any juror, nor to any person that lives. Mr. BRITTON —I am very happy to know it if it is so. The COURT.—Now let the witness be sworn; the juror stands fairly on the record. Joseph II. Barclay—Sworn for Defendant. Q. What is your business? A. At present am clerk in a law office with Crooke, Bergen & Clement. Q. Are you acquainted with the accused, Fanny Hyde? A. Iam. Q. How long have you known her? A. Three years, perhaps a little over. Q. During that portion of the time did you reside in the same house ? A. I did, sir, and reside there now. Q. That w r as about a year before she was married? A. Yes; about a year before she was married I first went to the house. Q. You was studying law at that time? A. Yes. Q. You was home most of the time—even¬ ings? A. Yes, sir. Q. Most every evening ? A. Yes. Q. You had occasion to see a great deal of her ? A. Yes. Q. So far as you observed what was her con- duct for propriety, and in every respect ? A. As far as I saw it was very good in every re¬ spect I saw nothing out of the way. She was very industrious. At night mostly home. Q What year was you first acquainted with her ? A. I think in 1869. Q. While in the house with her her conduct was uniformly good? A. Yes, very good.? Q. Did you ever see anything that indicated impropriety on her part ? A. I never did. Cross-examined. Q. How long did you say you was in the house with her ? A. I think about six or eight months. Q. What were your means of seeing her that time? A. I was at work during the day; and evenings after I came home I was studying law until about nine or ten o’clock. Q. During the time she was at work, and when you was not at home, you saw nothing of her? A. No; I saw her Sundays and evenings when I was at home. Q. She occupied part of the house and you a part ? A. Yes. John Byrne, M. D .— Sioorn for the Defendant. suffering from the cause I have stated, o sudden shock or fright? Objection to the question. The COURT. — The whole question. Mr. BRITTON.—Yes, six. The COURT. —What would be the effe the mental system ? Mr. MORRIS. — The mind. Mr. BRITTON.—I submit that there proof here whatever as a foundation foi question. There is no evidence of any.* in this case, immediately or at all approxin antecedent to this act. The testimony, t as I understand it, does not show any si shock at all. It simply shows that this dt ant took a pistol from her drawer that mor took it to this place in her bosom, and the person who was killed, as he had often dot fore, accused her indoors of some acts, afterwards outside, and, having lived wit two or three years adulterously, he mad vances to her for that purpose, asking her elsewhere, and that he took hold ot her v view of inducing her, or coercing her, m . ited sense, as it were, if it may be so const to go out for that purpose ; that some kim struggle ensued, and he was shot. The COURT.—If for the words “stl shock” should be substituted “attack oi person.” Mr. BRITTON.—I would not object t: question if it stated the facts and asked effect. Mr. MORRIS. — I suppose the line of 1 marks will be considered in the line of hii fession. I shall not imitate Ins example, counsel may say that I have not stated it \> the evidence, but I have a right to state a thetical question. He may state it in hi and I will state it in my way. I shall art the jury that the question comes withii evidence. He may argue the other wa state it as a hypothetical question, ant counsel cannot say, in advance of the judp of this jury, what facts are proven or win evid -nee establishes. The COURT.—I am of opinion that tk evidence in this case as to the health of t; cused, of her sickness and suffering, respect to this sudden shock, which is th jective point in the question, it has its si tion in the statement of the accused vesti that the deceased made an attack on he she sought to defend herself. In view o: statement the question is admitted. A. The effect would be to totally miner party, and destroy any intelligence as t acts, under the circumstances. Q. I will put the hypothetical question :l other form. Take a young girl of nel temperament, who is employed in a fact7 fifteen years of age by a man in the nek* hood of forty ; after she has been in his eil about five or six months he seduces hers has a step-mother—her mother having! at the age of four years — who is stern strict with her ; her father is also stern! this man keeps up that intercourse for i< siderable period of time by threats of expel during this period her health declines, he it Q. How long have vou been practicing medi¬ cine? A. About twenty-four years. Q. Have you given any especial study to dis¬ eases peculiar to the female sex ? A. Yes, sir. • Q. Are you connected now with any public institution where those diseases are especially treated ? A. Yes. Q. What ones ? A. The Women’s Hospital, St. Mary’s. I have charge of that institution. The COURT.—Where is it ? A. Dean street, this city. Q. You are connected with other medical in¬ stitutions ? A I am connected with the Long Island Medical College ; am Clinical Professor of Uterine Diseases. Q. Give in some idea as to the extent of your experience in this branch ot the medical profes¬ sion? A. My experience has been gathered from pretty extensive and long practice, and from having been specially devoted to this branch of the medical education. Q. What is the effect of painful dismenorrhoea, or menstrual difficulties, on the mind of a person of nervous temperament ? A. The effect is often times disturbing to the mind, and in ner¬ vous temperaments will intensely increase ner¬ vous irritability. Q. Have you, in your experience in this branch of the medical profession, known of cases of great mental and nervous disturbance that have been attributable solely, as you con¬ sider, to this cause ? A. I have. Q. Is it an infrequent cause of producing mental disturbance ? A. Not infrequent Q. And is that doctrine sustained by medical writers on this subject ? A. It is. Q. What would be the effect on a person in delicate health, of a nervous temperament, and 73 iod deal wasted, she broods over this dif- and misfortune, frequently manifesting 3ars and grief, and begs of him to leave one ; he still pursues her ; she meets a man where she has been living, forms i plain tance, and after two or three months, i s him, the man who had seduced her be- arriage swearing that he will never pur- I r further if she marries ; he subsequently 13 , and, by threats, holding her in his power, iues a similar intercourse, and this is kept I' a considerable period, she suffering t from menstrual difficulties, and is suf- i from that cause at the time to which I • she takes a pistol from her house without i :ent to shoot any one ; she is seen in the -ig by a number of people, with an un- 3 look, looking wildly out of her eyes ; : kes use of expressions indicating she was eplating suicide; she goes out into the id suddenly, while thus suffering, this izes hold of her in an indecent and lewd r/, and declares she shall go out with him. tio you think, she suffering from the e l have indicated, would be the effect ijier mental condition? A. I think its t ould be to temporarily destroy her rea¬ lly, supposing all these facts as to her i 1 and nervous condition to be true. will state the hypothetical question ti differently: A little girl ten years i comes to this country from Eng- > join her father who has preceded :e had very few advantages of men- ii ire, having been set at work at a very “age; from the time she was five or e3 of age she was in the habit of attend- 5i day School, and felt much interested in a 3; she was kind and obedient; shortly I ‘ arrival here, her father being poor, she p at work, and kept steadily employed; rt a of the time she attended night-school, ■e le received premiums for her attention in, and good conduct; her nervous organ- 31 delicate, her bodily health remarkably ’ 1 a fi ne > P ure complexion, good; ftures, round, well-developed form, dis- ic kind, fond of children, temperament rf ’e and spirit; at the age of 15 she is en- i the factory of the deceased, and at that si was pure and virtuous; the deceased i jin upwards of 40 years of age; she had ei with the deceased about six months; to the factory one day after some mate- fo some work, and found him alone; he d e door, and before she left, succeeded efciching her; she now felt keenly her id.' on, and brooded over her condition, tang her grief in frequent tears; her H s a stem man; her mother died when iaf child, and her step-mother, while not 38,1 8 aer ’ was strict and formal, there ? J t that degree of confidence between 11 usually exists between mother and she was greatly troubled in her mind sec it of her misfortune, and did not know to o; she brooded over it and had no con- II vhom she could relate the story of her €>||er destroyer continued his criminal coy.e, compelling her to yield to his wishes by threats of exposure; she became enciente, and he procured medicine and compelled her to take it with the object of bringing on her periods. This occurred frequently; she was irregular in her periods, suffered greatly in consequence of menstrual difficulties; under her misfortunes a marked change took place in her disposition; she became irritable, less subject to parental control, careless as to personal appearance, her health gradually declined, her formerly health¬ ful color disappeared, and she became pale and emaciated; about fifteen months after her ruin was accomplished she made the acquaintance of her present husband, an apprentice; after a few months he offered marriage; the deceased urged her to marry, promising, and taking an oath to the effect, that if she married he would never pursue her further; she was married; she hon¬ estly intended to be true to her marriage vow; she had been married but a short time when de¬ ceased again came to see her, and under threats of exposure, accomplished his purpose as be¬ fore; she felt keenly her degradation; she now felt the wrong to her husband, and it preyed upon her mind until she declared to her mother-in-law, without stating the cause, that a curse hung over her; her health and strength fell away; she suffered much from pain¬ ful dissmenorrhoea; her husband became alarmed at her physical condition, and she was sent to her mother-in-law’s, at Washington, for the pur¬ pose of seeing a physician. She saw Dr. Elliott and he prescribed for her. She had been there but a short time when her husband wrote her to return, he having gone to New Britain, Connec¬ ticut, for the purpose of working. She was greatly distressed in her mind, on account of her misfortune; she wept bitterly, and it was then she stated that she felt a curse hanging over her head. This was in the spring of 1871. She went to join her husband in New Britain, where she resumed her labor, although suffering much from causes stated. While here, de¬ ceased took her to his own house and intro¬ duced her to his own family, and she slept with his daughter and little girl, and here he contin¬ ued his persecutions until she, in her despera¬ tion, in presence of her husband, charged him with having accomplished her ruin. He admit¬ ted the fact, and begged, for the sake of his wife and children they would not expose him, and promised again that he would cease his perse¬ cutions. She and her husband immediately left New Britain, and returned to Brooklyn. Shortly after he returns and renews his visits, and threatened to expose her in such a manner that it would come to the ears of her father, and under the power and influence of such threats he again renewed his criminal intimacy. He dogged her about, watching her wherever she went. He tried to induce her to go to New York to live. Before the holidays she heard her husband would like to have a pistol; the sugges¬ tion was made because some burglaries had been committed in the neighborhood. She made up her mind to make her husband a present of one and, about the 5th or 6th of January, having had to pay her rent previously, and thus having no money on New Year’s day to pay it, she pur¬ chased one—her brother being with her—and 74 gave it to her husband. It was kept in the house two or three weeks, and on that day she put it in her bosom. She said that she thought it might frighten him and induce him to leave her alone and desist his persecutions; that she had no idea of injuring anyone; her physical condition at the time was weak, and she was suf¬ fering greatly from dissmenorrhoea. Her grand¬ father was insane, and committed suicide by drowning. She acted strangely during the lore- part of the day of the homicide, which was at about 12 m. She was observed sitting by the stove, looking steadily as if some great grief was pressing her mind. Her aunt spoke to her and she replied, “I wish I was dead;” and when asked why, she said for many reasons. On another occasion the same morning, she was no¬ ticed by a person who was in the habit of seeing her daily, and he states that she had a strange appearance, and could not describe it; her color was unnatural, eyes red; and another describes her as having a wild, strange appearance. She goes into the room and sees a person there she was well acquainted with and takes no notice of them and does not speak to them. She left the room and went up stairs for the purpose of going to a closet: her strange look then attracted attention; the closets up stairs being occupied, she went below; the door was locked, and she ran back up stairs. As she got at the head of the stairs, the deceased, who had been watching for her, and whom she supposed was in the room, suddenly caught hold of her, saying that she should go out with him. A brief struggle ensued, and in that struggle he was shot. She says she did not know how it occurred, that she had no idea of the shooting, and took no aim, don't recollect how it was done, don’t recollect to whom she gave the pistol or who took it. Now, Doctor, taking all these matters into con¬ sideration, what, in your opinion, was the effect upon her mind of this unexpected attack ? A. Premising, sir, that before this last act of shoot¬ ing, from the statement made that her mind was in a state of incipient menstrual mania, as de¬ scribed by authorities, I say, premising such, I would say that at the time of the act she was not in her right mind, she was insane to all intents and purposes. Q. Can you state whether producing an abor¬ tion upon a young girl sixteen years of age, by drugs and medicines, would have a tendency to affect the mind of a person of nervous organi¬ zation ? A. It would, as any other debilitating circumstance would, by depressing her physical powers and working upon her nervous system. Q. In your general practice, is it unusual for you to find young girls, during certain periods, when they are affected with mens final difficul¬ ties, to be affected mentally during that period ? A. They are affected mentally to the extent of hysterical paroxysms. Q. And from that cause alone? A. From that cause alone. Mr. MORRIS.—I desire to withdraw this witness, having questioned him as to this par¬ ticular branch, and put another on the stand, and then recall this witness and conclude his examination. Mr. BRITTON.—I would like to cro amine him. Mr. MORRIS.—The witness is to b examined in full. The COURT.—If the District Attorney v to cross-examine him now, you desire to him on the direct ? Mr. BRITTON.—I don’t desire couni examine him on any other subject mat! desire to cross-examine now, while the si is fresh in my mind. Mr. MORRIS.—It will be the same s matter. Dr. Charles Correy — Sworn. Q. How long have you been practising sician ? A. Sixteen and a half years. Q. And during that time you have mai study of the mind and its disease a spei A. Yes, sir. Q. What institutions have you been con i with ? A. The New York City Lunatic All on Blackwell’s Island, and subsequently, I years, at the Bloomingdale Asylum til insane. Q. You was at the Asylum on Blacl Island ? A. Yes. Q. How long were you connected with A. I was there near a year. Q. You have been eleven years aequ with the treatment of these diseases ? A nearly eleven years. Q. And since then you have given n» less attention to the subject ? A. Yes. Q. Will you state whether delusion, ol siloria mania, is a condition recogniij medical authorities ? A. It is. Q. Is it sometimes designated iinpukM sanity ? A. It is. Q. What temperament would be most to be affected by a sudden shock ? A. 1 called the nervous or excitable temperam Q. Is a sudden shock recognized as of producing insanity ? A. It is. Q. Is grief, or long continued broodii a subject that causes grief, considers cause? A. It is. q>. You have read Dr. Ray’s Medica prudence ? A. I have. • Q. Do you regard that as high authorial It is considered among the best. Q. Dr. Beauford, Professor of Psych Medicine, St. George’s Hospital, Lone he considered high authority on this A. He is. Q. And is it not a fact well recogniz this form of insanity may be suddenly and suddenly disappear ? A. Ithiukit. Q. It is brief in its duration ? A. It more marked symptoms. Q. Is it not the fact that the more su attack the shorter is the duration ? AJ rally so. Q. Is insanity 7 in the family consider disposing cause ? A. It is. Q. -And is it not a recognized fac* tha 1 75 e generations and appear again ? A. That Have you read the article by Dr. Jarvis, shed in the American Journal of Insanity lly, 1869 ? A. I have. That is published at Utica and signed by hay ? A. Yes. I have the article here ; I will call your cion to it—(to some portions of it)—and whether it agrees with your experience and ledge of the subject. Referring to mania iioria, he says : 'his is a form of mental disorder which nly appears in a person previously sane, supposed to be unsound in mind ; it has i-t duration and suddenly disappears. This j exclusively a new or an old doctrine, but ; been taught in France and Germany and t countries, and by managers of the insane l y writers on these topics. It is recognized y psychological authorities of Great Britain U admitted by Courts and juries having anagement of persons who have committed > hich would otherwise have been considered cninal, and for which they would other- eave been doomed to death by the scaffold. ” a o the manner of its appearance and dis- it -ance and its recognition by the authori- i ferred to, does that agree with your ex¬ it ce and knowledge on the subject ? A. It is !r ; but I should like to be understood as itng that there always exists, previous to ciurrence of the act of violence, some evi- icof mental disturbance, i. Jertainly. A. In other words, I would k understood as sustaining the doctrine t i to a certain moment a person may un¬ is nably be sane, the next moment insane, 1 i lin the next moment perfectly sane. lertainly not. I am not aware that doc- le as ever been attempted to be advanced in It < >e. A. That is the popular feeling that li 1 men are not disposed to uphold. Hereditary disposition you would consider or of the pre-existing causes ? A. I should, i ainful dismenorrhoea you would regard m her pre-disposmg cause ? A. Yes. i- l ave you read the articles published by . C itelman in the American Journal on the je ? A. I have. b Mania instantaneous, temporary, transi- y, leting; a mental disorder which breaks . t Idenly like the sudden loss of sense by ae hysical disease: the subject is urged in aoent to automatic acts which could not e Uen foreseen. 1 ' Does that accord with ir periences or knowledge on this subject? It! res. I- ois is a French author is he not? A. i8 ‘ b- it not a fact that a great many people n itally affected, and yet their ailment is s h as to be discovered by the ordinary er '? A. Very frequently, i- | it not a fact that they are frequently m to deceive the physicians of the hos- ‘k A. That is so. i- id that, too, when they are unquestion- yi ane? A. Yes. I fill call your attention to an article by De Vergie entitled, “Where does reason end and insanity begin ?” “Besides these cases of insanity, produced under all those causes, there Ls another to which they give the name of ‘Transitory Insanity’ — that is to say, without preceding apparent symp¬ toms, without causes near or remote, appreci¬ able to the world, bursting out as suddenly as a clap of thunder, and ceasing with the criminal act. I should be able to discover certain evi¬ dences of mental disturbances immediately fol¬ lowing the criminal act. 1 ’ Would one of those evidences be an imperfect recollection of the occurrence ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Making no effort to conceal the act? A. That is one of the most marked. Q. Delivering themselves up to the authori¬ ties ? A. They frequently do so. Q. Dr. Jarvis further says: “ These doctrines are further sustained by French lawyers and judges. Ballard, a jurist of high character, whom no one suspects of being indulgent, says: ‘ There are some who have suffered a perpetual loss of reason; others for a moment, being affected by some great grief, surprise or other cause of this kind. There Ls no difference be¬ tween these two forms of mania than that of duration; and one whose head is turned for some hours or some days is as completely insane during this ephemeral cause as one who is mad for many years.” Is it not a well recognized doctrine that a person may be as completely insane and irrespon¬ sible when afflicted with this temporary insanity as if insane for a longer period. A. It is so, sir. Q. “There is no want of authorities to estab¬ lish the doctrine of instantaneous insanity. The observations made by writers of medical juris¬ prudence of the present day leaves no doubt of the existence of this mania, during which men who have never manifested insanity are com¬ pletely deprived of reason, and give themselves up to the most deplorable excesses. ” Does that comport with your knowledge, reading, and experience on this subject, with the qualification that you have before you ? A. Yes. Q. Does change of character, disposition, outward habits of person indicate a change in the mind and tendency to insanity ? A. They are the most frequent evidences of mental dis¬ turbance. Q. Take a person of nervous temperament, whose grandfather had died insane, a change takes place in her disposition, her temper be¬ comes irritable, becomes careless in her dress and habits, having been the subject of great grief for a long period, and suffering from pain¬ ful dismenorrhoea—take those four causes unit¬ ing in a person of nervous temperament, and you would say that she was a person in whom you might expect this impulsive insanity, or this form of insanity to be produced? A. I should, sir, or any other form of insanity. Q. I call your attention to one or two ex¬ tracts from Dr. Ray. Please state whether they accord with your experience and knowledge on the subject: “Yet sometimes, especially on the operation 76 of a powerfully exciting Cause, it breaks out suddenly and terminates in a few hours. It has been called transitory mania or instan¬ taneous mania.” Now taking the evidence as you have heard it on the stand from the witnesses as to the occur¬ rences at the moment of this homicide, would you say that that was a powerfully exciting cause in your opinion ? A. I should. Q. Again he says in cases like that of Mercer : “When a man destroys the seducer of his wife, sister, or daughter, we often see the in¬ fluence of the insane temperament; and the effect has been very much in determining the quality of the act. We also know, as a matter of no very infrequent experience, that insanity may be produced instantaneously by a profound moral shock. If a person might be deprived of his senses on a piece of good news, or of the death of one very near and dear, is it strange such results would follow what is calculated above all others to stir the soul to its inmost depths ? What the mental condition actually is must be determined by evidence in the case, and any doubt there may be we may be quite sure, will be given in favor of the accused.” The announcement of some sudden, great, and good fortune is conceded by the authorities as being a cause for producing insanity ? A. Yes. Q. That is the doctrine of the books ? A. Yes. Q. You would consider news of great mis¬ fortune a more prolific cause than news of good fortune ? A. I should. Q. One form of this affliction is that of the insane impulse appearing suddenly, without previous premonition, and disappearing with equal rapidity. The existence of the insane impulse and instantaneous mania is supported by the lessons of pathological psychology as by the actual case. The rapid and tumultuous excess of feelings that rush into the mind, the reflective powers are paralized, and the move¬ ments are simply the result of automatic im¬ pulse, with which the reason has as little to do as the motives of a new bom infant.” I read these from Dr. Kay; and what do you say as to the doctor there ? A. I believe that is sound doctrine. Q. Is it not a recognized fact that insane per¬ sons may co mmi t acts of which they are fully conscious and yet utterly unable to resist ? A. It is. Q. Do you know Dr. Woodward, Superin¬ tendent of the Massachusetts Asylum ? A. By reputation, not personally. Q. I will read what he 6ays here, and then ask you if you can, in your experience, add any¬ thing to the exposition he has made: “Of all cases that have come to my knowl¬ edge — and I have examined the subject for years — I have known but a single instance in which an individual arraigned tor murder and found not guilty, by reason of insanity, has not after¬ wards shown unequivocal symptoms of insanity in hospitals where he has been confined ; and I regret to say that many have been executed who have shown as clear evidences of insanity as any of these.” In your reading and expe'flen'de have yoa known a case where the plea of insanity been sustained by medical testimony, in wi pre-disposing causes have existed that the i sequent history of the patient did not just Mr. BRITTON.—I don’t like to have question go in without objection, at least Mr. MORRIS.—I withdraw it, then. Q. I will read one more extract from same author : “Mania, characterized as in these cases sudden occurrences of a brief duration, lately been spoken of as if destitute of a pri foundation in fact. But there is no substai reason for doubt. I am not aware of a si writer on insanity of any mark during the forty or fifty years who has not recognizee existence. Most of them have recorded c occurring within their own observation. M cases may be found in journals devoted wl to psychological medicine. Dr. Jarvis, who had occasion recently to examine the sub states that he found from seventy-five tc hundred cases on record. ‘ Indeed, ’ says h< is questionable if any other phase of insf has been more satisfactorily illustrated this.’” Is there any more doubt about this fon insanity than about any other form ? A. I; is not. Q. Upon another point I will call your ai tiou to a statement in Beauford : * ‘ Of the sympathetic connection existin i tween the brain and uterus is plainly see l the most casual observer. Many women completely prostrated while menstruating I suffer intensely in the head. ” Does that accord with your experience ! It does. “ Q. If we consider insanity makes its api ance at the time of puberty ; that this peril more dangerous to girls than to boys;* more girls between the age6 of twelve* eighteen become insane than boys; the« should expect to find every girl at this tim a peculiarly susceptible nervous irritation. 1« fore, in one who inherits from her anc«st< I unstable organization, two conditions exis a favorable for the production of her mentjli order. These may be of themselves suf *• to originate it." Does that agree with your experience I this disease and its cause ? A. It does. i Q. Delirium is no longer considered to ■ only kind of insanity ? A. It is not, Q. Insanity exists in many cases withe * lirium? A. It does. Q. Let me call your attention to anothe *n graph of Beauford. Speaking of this fci a insanity, I trust the Court will be a little ]® w'ith me, and the jurors—I know they vjj cause it may be afterwards said in certaii*? ters that the idea of temporary inaaM absurd—not by this prosecution, but o>» In speaking of this subject he says : ‘ ‘ There is another variety of insan ■ ® rather another class of the insane patieS ■- whom no delusions are to be discover* W whose insanity is manifested in what tfjjj rather than in what they say. It is imls' , 77 ji instinctive insanity, the victims of which, ner impulse and instinct, do something, com- n some act of violence, for which, being nne, they are not to be held liable, but for vljh, were they sane, they would be respon- ife.” o you recollect of this author advancing that lcrine? A. Ido. . Do you think it is sound doctrine ? A. I it he COURT.—You mean to say it is accepted is.iuch in the profession? A. Yes, sir; by h e who have made it a study. That such cases exist, and are not merely n nted by doctors as an excuse for crime, is niciently proven. Indeed, there can be no kbt about the existence of insanity marked >yucli impulses. My present purpose is to o ider the impulsive acts of the insane, espe- ■if y of those whose insanity not being marked >y elusion is chiefly indicated by the act itself. Cl act, however, is plainly the out-come of oi; idea present for the moment in the mind, >u present possibly only for the moment, and hi so obliterated that the individual after¬ rats has lost all trace of it. * Do you recollect this authority having d need that doctrine ? A. I do. 1 Do you consider this sound doctrine ? A. ! cj 1 * Is Dr. Maundsley considered good author- tv A. He is. 1 He is an English writer ? A. He is. i He has not taken quite as advanced ground in fls subject as some other authorities ? A. It as not had the practical experience in the asof the insane that some other gentlemen ia' < Speaking on this subject he says that a iei in under such an attack : “ It is no longer n lea the relations of which the mind can oi stnplate, but a violent impulse into which lie, line! is absorbed and irresistibly utters itself ijption.” And Dr. Beauford says: “This ei; done, the feeling and idea having ex- ei ed themselves in action, may cease for a ji until the morbid process is enacted over g£ in the br.iin.” Do you find anything oe, Doctor, from which you dissent? A. No. (f Says Dr. Ray : “It would be no greater it to deny the existence of consumption be- u its approaches have not been noticed, ia to deny insanity because its symptoms ai not been observed. ” You can speak from ov experience upon that ? A. I can. C Will you state, if you please, a condition ia you would think favorable, in which you 'oi 1 expect the development of this form of isity ? In that I desire you to speak of the ui of the person, admitting a predisposing ni, if you were asked to state in what sort of a ey you would expect manifestations of this M A. I should suppose that person in- ei'iQg a jiredisposition to insanity, those hi 1 ! general health is impaired by any cause, io who are naturally nervous and excitable, ioi, who have been subjected to any great ■ia tf their feelings in any way to cause them ) c ell much on the subject, to regret it and e l ake nights and dream over it. and then the application of a great and sudden excite¬ ment or some strong emotion—I should suppose such persons, under such circumstances, would be very likely to lose their reason. Q. And added to that at the time of this ex¬ citing cause, painful dismenorrhcea—that would greatly increase the probability of it ? A. I think it would. Q. You have heard some of the testimony in the case, and from what you have heard, and the examination_j T ou have made, do you think the prisoner in this case answers the descrip¬ tion ? A. Very fully. Q. Is Dr. Pritchard regarded as high author¬ ity ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Speaking of this form : “In this disorder the will is occasionally under an impulse which suddenly drives the person afflicted to the per¬ petration of acts of the most revolting kind.” Is there anything in that from which you dis¬ sent ? A. There is not. Q. Dr. Gray. Do you know him by reputa¬ tion ? A. I do. Q. In speaking of this form of insanity, page 15, he says : “The most distinguished authors, both home and abroad, have recognized this form of mental unsoundness as having exist¬ ence independent of delusion. The cases on record are so numerous the only difficulty is the selection.” As to the fact of the existence of this disorder, do you agree with that? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is Dr. Bucknell regarded as high author¬ ity ? A. Very high authority. Q. He maintains the same doctrine ? A. He does. Q. Esquirol formerly doubted the doctrine ? A. He did, I think. Q. He fully recognizes it now ? A. He does, now. Q. In speaking of this form he says : ‘ ‘ The patient is drawn from his accustomed courses to the commission of acts to which reason nor sentiment determine, which conscience rebukes, and which the will has no power to restrain— acts that are involuntary, instinctive and irre¬ sistible. This is mania without delusion, or instinctive monomania. ” Do you assent to that doctrine? A. I do. Q. The action of a person under this form of insanity would you consider as purely auto¬ matic, without the guidance of the will at all ? A. Entirely so. Q. Do you recollect whether Dr. Taylor is a writer on medical jurisprudence ? A. General medical jurisprudence. Q. Do you recollect whether he sustains the doctrine of impulsive or paroxysmal mania ? A. I am not familiar with Dr. Taylor on this branch. Q. I will read from a paragraph: “Homi¬ cidal mania, or monomania, is commonly de¬ fined to be a state of partial insanity, accom¬ panied by an impulse to the perpetration of murder; hence it is sometimes called ‘ ‘ im¬ pulsive, ’ or ‘ paroxysmal insanity.' There may or may not be evidence of intellectual aberra¬ tion, but the main feature of the disorder is the existence of a destructive impulse, which, like a delusion, cannot be controlled by the patient.” That agrees with the other authorities? A. I think it does. Q. He further says on this subject: “ The impulse to kill is sudden, instinctive, and uncontrollable. It is this form which has been called impulsive insanity, which has given rise to so much contention on trials for murder, where insanity is set up as a defense. It is well to consider the subject in its legal aspect. It is said that on particular occasions men are seized with an irresistible impulse to kill, and under such impulse may commit acts that otherwise would be atrociously criminal. It would be ab¬ surd to deny that such impulses may occur, or the fact that they have occurred and have been acted on. ” That is of the same tenor, advancing the same general doctrines ? A. The same general doctrine is implied ; sudden impulse frequently arises among the insane, and not unfrequently in those who have been recognized by the com¬ munity as insane before the occurrence of the act Q. I will ask the question in a little different form from what I have yet; I asked you to de¬ scribe a person such as you would expect to be subject to this form of attack ; you described the person and then stated the prisoner answered the description. Now, doctor, from the evi¬ dence you have heard in the case and the ex¬ amination you have made, taking all into con¬ sideration—the whole history of the case, what, in your opinion, do you say was the condition of her mind at the precise time of this homicide ? A. I have no doubt that she was insane. Q. Irresponsible ? A. Irresponsible ; I be¬ lieve the act was from the result of a sudden impulse, the occurrence of which she did not foresee and which she was not able to restrain ; I believe she had no knowledge of what she was doing at the time the shot occurred. Cross-examination. Q. Can you give us what you deem to be a concise definition of insanity ? A. It is very difficult. Q. I am aware it is very difficult, but I know you have made it a study, and I thought you might, perhaps, be able io approximate to it; if it cannot be done in a moment, I will wait. A. It is a disease of the brain, affecting the mind ; or manifestation of disease of the brain, characterized by derangement of one or more faculties of the mind. Q- Your definition covers the point I wished ; it is recognized by authorities, as it is by your¬ self, that it is a disease of the brain, particu¬ larly that phase of it known as ‘ ‘ mania ? ” A. Yes. Q. It is divided by writers and authorities into various subdivisions, one of which is mania? A. Yes. Q. And it is that more especially which yon have been testifying to, as distinguished trom dementia ? A. That is the general term. Q. Bucknell and Ray, and most of those authorities, agree with you that it is a disease of the brain, affecting the mind ? A. Yes. Q. And that disease is not instantaneously created , in your judgment, any more thai other physical disease ? A. It is not. Q. It has an incubation before it dev itself? A. Yes. Q. I read from Dr. Ray, and I propose t y»u if that embodies your views upon that ject : “Notwithstanding the air of mystery vi ignorance and misrepresentation have th around this disease, it cannot be said to P r « anything strange or peculiar, nor are the cussions in it involved in any obscurity posed to attend them ! It is just as mucl no more an event of special providence as i diseases ; it follows the same course of ini tion, development, and termination, in co death, as other diseases, sometimes lying | rnant for months or even years ; often obw from others and unsuspected by the pe himself ; at others suddenly breaking out, little premonition of its approach, and i after being repeatedly warded off by precan and remedies, finally establishing itself ii clearest forms. ” It has a regular progress as other dis« do? A. Very generally. Q. This branch of disease called Mania sitoria is no exception to the rule? A. I i not. Q. You don’t recognize, if I understandi aright, the doctrine that persons can be sail their lives and then become suddenly ini and in a few moments, five or ten minute halt an horn - , be entirely sane again ? A. I not say that. Q. I know you did not; but I want to '1 it out more clearly. You don’t mean ) understood any such way as that Ancd insanity is a predisposing cause ? A. Yes. I Q. You don't consider that that fact i would be evidence of insanity in a person Ii is charged with having committed a crime:! By no means. Q. Coupled with that fact there rnusl other indications before the crime ? A. I sill expect to find them. Q. And you would expect to find them i time anterior to the actual commission oi crime charged? A. Yes; might be but «■ short time. Q. Some days? A. Not necessarily. Q. More than one day ? Not neecstfl more than a single day. Q. Would you consider that fact alone tt person charged with a crirn : of this natural same day was paler than usual, and at the B time had a wilder expression of the eye * usual, and was more silent than usual - «tl you consider these indications as suffi® coupled with the fact that some ancestor 1 grandfather, if you please — bad been insai I show insanity on the part of the person ! No, sir. I should only consider these indica* of a great nervous disturbance. Q. They might arise from that and not >1 any insanity ? A. They might. Q. Suppose this person had con ten) plat* i that very time when these indications devel* themselves, the purpose of shooting ano« and had in his or her possession on that i 79 .o a weapon for that purpose, and that person idd be of a nervous organization—a woman -i.ght it not produce just such indications as at;? A. On the contrary; it would seem to ueshat that person who had planned, calmly u: determinedly, to shoot, that that person •c d remain calm, collected, and determined. ( Would not that be indicated by paleness f e face ? A. Not necessarily, i Might it not possibly? A. Possibly. ( Don’t you know some persons in your ex- e: mce who, when excited interiorly, are calm xt'iorly, and are merely pale in the face ? A. ’Ll condition, under such circumstances, is loSpreceded by evidence of nervous disturb- n, The excitement rises as suddenly as the tndsive act, | Then you don’t think that a person who a contemplating the crime is very excited vi 1 has that pallor of face? A. Not neces- uy- i Might one be ? A. Possibly, i Would it not be more likely for a person if nervous temperament than for a person of i mguine temperament ? A. Yes, sir. * In answer to a question from counsel on bother side, you have stated that the prisoner mi rial here, answering the condition such as o have described, and from the examination if ,e facts and circumstances of this case, that •o|was of the opinion at the time of the com- aiion of this act, this prisoner was insane, fl > is based on the assumption that the testi- ncy which you have heard given in the case >y rat prisoner on the stand was true ? A. I n juite willing to leave out of the considera- io of the case entirely all testimony as given jyierself, and my opinions would be the same. 1 Based on what? A. On other testimony, m le assumption that it is true. What other testimony ? A. Of the other si esses. s, 1 What testimony of other witnesses? A. king on her condition that forenoon, and kchange in her disposition, character, acts, ta"ts, for weeks and months before. ‘ Do you mean to be understood as saying hi the fact that the prisoner grew thinner in le,;, changed her habits, became careless of Mi, and on that morning looked paler and ri'er in the eyes—that these facts are suffi- it - to satisfy your mind, independent of this c that the prisoner was insane ? A. No, sir. Then what are the other facts upon which v base that conclusion as testified to by other >'i esses ? A. The fact of her conduct imme- lii ly before and soon after the shooting. | The facts as testified to by other witnesses? U have them distinctly in my mind as given. | What is that testimony to which you refer s ven by other witnesses? A. The fact of ie igitation, her willingness to surrender her- el her making no effort to escape, are all facts ci sually expect to find. Then is it true in your judgment, because ® person who has shot another is agitated ft the killing, that is necessary to go to make The element of insanity? A. Not necessa- 1 rr The tact that the prisoner, three hours afterwards, or in fact at any time, gave herself up, is that necessarily an element of insanity? A. No, sir. Q. You have known many instances where persons gave themselves up after commission of crime that were sane ? A. Yes. Q Can you state any other circumstance tes- tific l to by the witnesses, from which you form your judgment in that respect? A. I form my opinion by including all the material facts as stated by the witnesses. Q. Are there any other facts than those which you now state? A. Not that I can enumerate. Q. To what extent have you examined the prisoner since the transaction ? A. I have had two interviews with her. One during her con¬ finement in jail. I had one nearly an hour at one time. Q. Independent of the statements she made to you connected with the transaction and the circumstance that led to it, do you find any present indications of insanity ? A. I do not. Q. Is it not a material element in the conclu¬ sion to which you arrive in that respect that she w r as unconscious of the act at the time it was committed, and did not remember it afterwards ? A. That testimony strengthens my convictions that she was, at the time of the shooting, in¬ sane. Q. Suppose the fact to be that she, immedi¬ ately after the shooting, called the attention of the first person that came there to the fact that the man killed lay at the bottom of the stairs, would that be an indication or not to you that she was conscious at the time ? A. That would be of no importance, the fact being so. Q. Suppose within a few minutes afterwards she said she had killed him, and then gave her¬ self up, and gave a motive for killing him, would that have any influence on your judg¬ ment as to whether she was insane? A. It would not. She might be insane and still make these statements. Q. Would it have any influence on your judg¬ ment as to whether she knew at the time she killed him ? A. Under the present circum¬ stances I think that is an important element in the testimony. Q. And if she declared that fact, it would tend to show to your mind that she did know at the time she killed him. If she declared the fact soon after, that she did, and gave the reason why—a rational reason for it—and that she knew she killed him at the time she did it. A. It does not necessarily follow. Q. Would it not be probable? A. I think it would not. Q. Do I understand you to say that if a per¬ son kills another, and within a few minutes afterwards states the fact that she did kill that other, and states a rational reason for such kill¬ ing, that that, is no evidence that she knew it at the time ? A. It might and it might not be. Q. Well, add to that the fact that two or three hours afterwards she goas to a station-house and delivers herself up without anj' suggestion from any other person that she ought to give herself up, would not that be a circumstance tending to show that she was conscious at that time of the killing? A. Not necessarily. 80 Q. What would it probably indicate ? A. She might feel it was just to do so. Q. Yes; k but my question is—suppose she claimed in the first instance that she did not know that she killed the person at the time, and had no knowledge of the killing, claims to have been in¬ sane at the time, no one tells her from that time down to the time she goes to the station-house that she has killed any body, and no one tells her she ought to go to the station-house, or give any reason why, and of her own volition 6he goes to the station-house and gives herself up as a criminal, would not that indicate to your mind that she was conscious that she had com¬ mitted the crime or had killed the person ? A. I think it would be the most natural thing pos¬ sible for her to do. Q. But would not that indicate that when she did deliver herself up she knew she had killed somebody ? A. By no means. Q. By what operation of mind, insane or sane, would a woman be induced to give herself up to the authorities? A. That would depend on her nature. You might have one nature and I an¬ other. Q. Do the insane have motives ? A. Cer¬ tainly. Q. Do those who commit crimes under mania transitoria have motives ? No, sir. Q. Now suppose this crime was committed under an insane impulse and there is no con¬ sciousness of the fact at that time, and no infor¬ mation has been conveyed—nothing said in the intermediate time to the prisoner about deliver¬ ing herself up, and she delivers herstlf up to the authorities, by what operation of mind could that follow except the consciousness of having committed the act—what inducement could there be to such a surrender except the con¬ sciousness of the act. A. If she had not killed him she certainly would not surrender herself for killing. Q. If she did not recollect she had, and no one told her, be kind enough to suggest what would induce her to go to the station house? A. She would certainly know she had killed the man. Q. That’s the point 1 want to get at. She would not have gone to the station house unless she knew she had killed the man? A. No, sir. Q. Suppose, when she arrived at the station house, she told the transaction in detail, stating she had killed him, and the motive she had for killing him, and stated reasons which were in effect indignities upon her, and then added that threats had been made to her, and she killed him for satisfaction ? Objected to. There is no such evidence in the case. The COUBT. — Is that evidence in the case? Mr. BRITTON.—It is not, but the counsel has claimed the right to put hypothetical ques¬ tions. Mr. MORRIS. — I claimed a hypothetical case that was based on evidence in the case. Mr. BRITTON.—This is a cress-examina¬ tion, and I intend to show precisely that thing. Mr. MORRIS. I object to the question, as it assumes a fact that has not been testified to in the case at all, and that counsel does not pre¬ tend has been proven. The hypothetical hi tions I put were strictly based on questic the case. Mr. BRITTON.—I claim that it was no u counsel stated that that would be a questic the jury. Mr. MORRIS.—Well, we both claim 1 there is no evidence on this point; so we | for once—for the first time. The COURT.—I don’t think the quest , based ou facts in evidence. Mr. BRITTON.—Then I shall be oblig keep this witness here until the case is c e when we can get the testimony. Mr. MORRIS.—We won’t object to tha Mr. BRITTON.—I waive this question reserve the right to put it afterwards. Q. Now, suppose a person, receiving a a indignity at the hands of another, which r J in her killing the person thus offering tl j] dignity, how would you determine, by ] symptoms or facts would you determine wli the person committing the act w r as insa the time, or whether it was the result of pe o inciting anger and revenge. A. I should) into account the entire history of the pe j her family 7 history 7 , hereditary tendencies t orders of any kind, and should consider whole history of her general health and vm experiences to which she might have been jected ; then the evidence touching the c J tion of the party accused before the commi a of the act, and the evidence as given beM on her condition subsequent to the act, thebJ ior of the accused. I think it w 7 ould iu lii everything. Q. Assuming it to be possible that the k n| may have been the result of provocation oi from a motive of revenge and satisfaction. ii might be denominated, what different sta 0 facts would suggest themselves to your :U than as though it were done under an impui o insanity? A. If it were done for revenf ; would not expect to discover any meutalii turbances preceding the act. I should sufis the party 7 w 7 ould have taken a less public p* and would attempt to seek his safety 7 by fla Q. Is it not a frequent occurrence that a sons who have killed others, not insane, It not sought flight? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it not quite a common thing whenti sons have killed others through a great pas»i caused by 7 any 7 adequate motive, that they (J not given themselves up—shooting in h streets and other public places? Do you 'i sider shooting in public places are evident* insanity in themselves ? A. Not of tliemsejS Q. Suppose a case of this kind : Here young girl, active, and more than usually i- ligent, plump, robust and in good health say 7 between fifteen and sixteen years of i she is seduced by her employer, who is it years of age or upward ; and suppose that d inal intercourse continues a year or two,I continuing pleasant, good-natured and gj as usual; and suppose that then it comes tit ears of her father—the rumor of this intunajj and her father gently and quietly suggest her this rumor and asks her about it: slio plies indignantly that she is able to take cat 81 If, and refuses to converse on the subject; subsequently, and within a few days, : her father’s house and looks out for her- soon afterwards, continuing this inter- fe as I have described it, she marries a ; man, and during the courtship of two :-ee months she continues as before this :ial intimacy, and then she marries this ) man, and even after that continues the sial intimacy with this same man, renew- within a month or two and continuing it ' and a half longer, and during that period cinge has occurred except in health and 3 and assuming at the same time she is i't to. one or more diseases of women, as a prostitute, and accuses her of being flier men, and she thereupon shoots him i pistol with which she had provided her- i the morning. Now, on that state of facts, il with the additional tact that her grand- e was deemed to be insane, would you spr this person insane of whom I have Johese sujspositions ? A. Not necessarily, i uppose the fact to be developed that this owho did the killing had a clear motive, cht in her mind to create feelings of re- -would that have any influence on your ;rnt upon the question as to whether or it at the time of the killing, she was in- id would not that show it ? A. No, sir. it be true that a person kills another nnotive is developed ; and if it be true that k person, under similar circumstances, either and a motive is developed—say of ni, passion or hatred—would you. under st e circumstances, consider that had no ir, on the question as to whether the per- w, insane? A. It might influence me to i dent in my opinion, but of itself would Sufficient. i ppose, on trial for murder, it had been lo'd that the person lulling was to receive t person killed a legacy of S50,000—if iu tion of insanity was at issue would not h e a hearing on your opinion ? A. It Id ®d me to look more carefully. The nt/on you have given would be a eircum- ' e ) influence my mind in arriving at a luin. Ijvvould be because a motive was shown r t n insanity ? A. Yes. 1 nderstaud you to say that in mania ito i a person has no motive. A. Might k ht not, it there is any adequate cause. I f'eak of mere motive as distinguished equate cause. A. There might and 11 ; he. It as possible, in your judgment, under -11 instances of the case, for the person ut ig the act not to have been insane? d< t think it would hav ebeen possible for lri juer. ^lout regard to the killing—throwing ue lling, and considering all the antece¬ dent facts down to the lime of the killing, it was possible from those facts alone to say the prisoner was not insane ? A. There was very strong evidence of a great degree of nervous irritability. Q. Independent of the killiug, are you so certain that you think it could not have been otherwise ? A. I look upon the killing as the culmination of the nervous state. Q. Leaving out of your mind the killing and considering only the circumstances which led to it, as you have heard, would it not be possible to say the person was not insane at the time of the killing? A. Yes sir, it is possible. Q. Now, that being so. what particular characteristic of the killing indicates that it was an insane act, as distinguished from the fact that it was done for the purpose of revenge ? A. I don’t know that it makes any difference. The fact, the party was killed is the culminating act of violence itself which is supposed to be an insane impulse. Q. Then there was no peculiarity about the act of killing itself, which distinguished it from an act of passion ? A. Nothing in the act it¬ self. Q. So that it is only 7 the antecedent circum¬ stances which influence your mind on that question ? A. The antecedent and subsequent. Q. Now I will leave this branch of the sub¬ ject. Insanity in this form is a modern dis¬ covery; mania transitoiia? A. Nothing mod¬ ern. Q. It has not generally been believed, among the scientific world until recently? A. It has been recognized by all those who have had any familiarity with the subject and opportunities for observation ? Q. Are not there those now 7 in the profession, of high attthority, who dispute it—take for in¬ stance Dr. Choate ? A. Yes. Q. His reputation is high ? A. Yes. Q. Is it not a fact that he disputes the new doctrine of mania transiloria. A. Perhaps in one sense he does—the sense in which I at¬ tempted to guard against in the opening of the cross-examination. Q There have been medical writers who claim that all crimes resulted from insanity ? A. I should think they were insane if they did. Q. Is it not the fact ? A. I believe it is. Q. They were eminent, conspicuous in the profession ? A. Conspicuous. Q. Recognized as eminent in every other re¬ spect. A. I am not able to say as to their standing. The COURT.—Y r ou mean to say 7 you don’t agree with them. A. Yes. Q. Some writers have gone so far as to claim that a majority of people have insanity in their natures? A. Yes. Q. Medical authority covers a pretty broad surface in this subject? A. Yes. Q. There is a great diversity of opinion among the profession on this subject of insanity ? A. Not very much diversity among those who have opportunity 7 for investigating. Q. Would you not likely feel that those who agree with you are the ones w 7 ho have had the best opportunity for knowing ? A. If I were 82 not a very modest man I might think they "were. Q. Has not this question of mania iransiloria mostly arisen in trials for crime ? A. Gener¬ ally. Q. In this case of Cole at Albany, did you read the testimony, the medical testimony? A. I have no distinct recollection. Q. You remember the circumstauce of Cole killing Hiscock for the seduction of his wife ? A. Yes. Q. You never read the facts sufficiently to form an opinion ? A. No. Q. Did you read the facts connected with-the trial of Pierce at Lockport. A. Yes, I read that. Q. That defense was set up there ? A. Yes. Q, Did you read the facts and circumstances connected with Laura D. Fair’s trial? A. I did not. Mr. MUTTON stated that was all he had to ask the witness, except the right to recall the witness after further testimony. Re-direcl. Q. Counsel read to you a paragraph from Dr. Pay, who was a verv good writer, but he left off in the middle of a sentence. That don’t read quite so well. I will conclude the sentence. On the subject of insanity having its period of incubation he went on to say : “It follows the same course of incubation and development, terminating in cure or death as other diseases.” I will read the whole sentence : “ Sometimes lying dormant for a month, or even years, obscure to others and perhaps un¬ suspected by the patient himself ; at others, suddenly breaking out with little premonition of its approach, and again, after being repeat¬ edly warded off by precautions and remedies finally establishing itself in its clearest forms; just as consumption, for ins^nce, sometimes begins its ravages so slowly and insidiously as to be perceptible only to the most practised ob¬ server. ” So that in speaking of general insanity, as he has spoken there, while it has its period of in¬ cubation, its manifestations may be sudden ? A. That’s the point Q. Produced by some great exciting cause ? A. That is just the impression I endeavored to convey. Q. Now I will just ask this question: I think you said that, leaving out of the case the testi¬ mony of the defendant, and taking the other evidence in this case, you then considered at the time this act was committed she was irresponsi¬ ble ? A. I should. Q. Now you have reference to the testimony of Mrs. Dexter who says that when she saw her by the stove, she looked as if oppressed and in great trouble, that she looked wild out of her eyes and face, and that when she spoke to her she wished she was dead; and the evidence of Mr. Dexter who observed her, and said she looked pale and wild out of her eyes; of Mrs. Gleason, who said that when she came in the room, although well acquainted with her family, she did not notice her nor speak to her, and she not’ced a wild expression of the eye; S Potts, who says when he opened the d; noticed the redness of her eyes and the 11 color of her face, and that she passed I without speaking to him; and then y4 I do not. Q. You would consider a person who 8 s# an idea of that kind rather a lunatic a A. I should be inclined to. None of the authorities to wliiel k| Q- 1 referred advance any such propositio' ,i Not one. Q. Do you know any medical writ who has ever advanced any idea of th A. I do not Q. Is it not referred to in all the J works to which I have called your atte:* the purpose of ridiculing the idea and iW its absurdity? A. Yes; they have c* 1| the idea. Q. Now is it not the fact that person » with this form of mania, after it pass - . J recollect something of what has occuifll They frequently do recollect more or ldl Re-cross. Q. In this particular case, when, in vrj ment, did insanity commence. A. It is*| ble to say. _ Q. As you have heard this evidence you consider to be the first indicate <( sanity ? A. I consider the violent act* the first well marked exhibition of insd Q. What indication did you see th • well marked, prior to the act? A. J*j ceding condition of the prisoner: he:if| nervousness. Q. What specific act of the prison^ prior to the killing, do you specity a^i one tending to show insanity, under ' s mouy ? A. If I understand your ques;0t is no single act which, of itself, is prfl sanity. [H Q. I don’t mean to ask that whai>®4 83 I asked you what specific act, prior to ling, is in your judgment evidence of in- or tending to show insanity—not suffi- but tending to show? A. Insanity is not uily shown by acts. The condition of dividual himself, his mental disturbance b the only indication there is. was there, in your judgment, any act of soner, prior to the killing, which tended V insanity ? A. I think her whole con- id demeanor on the morning of the day i shooting teuded to show a condition in Kvell-marked insanity is likely to occur, ou say that was a condition from which ly might result. Now the question I ix> put is this: Was there any act prior lulling, on the part of the prisoner, which c tself tend to show that she was of uu- :aind? A. I do not recall any specific testified to. hen her condition is indicative that she ipe a subject of iusanity ? A. Yes. ow, assume that she was insane, in the i: which you have testified, when this act : omitted, when, under this evidence, do 6 ' that insanity occurred? A. That is II impossible to say. is it ceased yet? A. So far as I am tiudge. l|b you think it had occurred when she tthe station house two hours afterwards? a not able to say. . it not a fact that where mania Iransitoria u rates itself in this way that there are ■ ]dications afterwards, and a considerable a awards, indicating that fact generally, s uld expect to find them. 1 es it not often result in a confirmed in¬ i' A. Very frequently. I n't the persons who thus suddenly make n aifestation of insanity frequently con- t be obviously and clearly insane after¬ s' A. Not general!y. I;sometimes happens that way? A. It t 1 so. Oi you specify any act of this accused t killing that indicated to you an un- I |te cf mind; and if so what ? • .ORRIS.—That has all been fully gone bare. RITTON.—I think not—no specific t prisoner which indicated an unsound oftiind after the killing. I' ither think it is the absence of any lie st that indicated it. T n what is your answer to my question ? k mind had not been disturbed I think nc probably she would have made some tc'Scape. V: there any affirmative specific act of o’ ny omission of act, after the killing, nc ated to you that she was of unsound ■l- In giving an answer to that question tlciake into consideration the fact that > ? lingly went to the station house. Yc consider that a specific act indicating 'tji| A. It is one of the facts which I it’ icessary to take into consideration. Is lere any act of her’s, under the evi- ■ a* the killing, which you would con¬ sider indicative of insanity ? A. I don’t recall any evidence bearing on that question. Q. Beyond that it is the absence of acts, in your judgment ? (No answer.) Re-direct. Q. Is it an accurate use of terms or words to speak of premonitory symptoms or predisposing causes as specific acts of insanity ? A. No. Q. Of course not, and the first specific act of insanity was the outburst itself? A. I think so. Mr. BRITTON.—I was not asking that. Q. But you spoke of her appearance in the morning as described by witnesses—her flurried condition and her appearance as simply show¬ ing that there was some great agitation going on in the mind which predisposed it and pre¬ pared it for this manifestation, which was the outburst? A. Yes. Q. That was an insane act; and you spoke of another of those as indicating insanity as an in¬ accurate use of terms ? A. I look upon it as such. Q. In forming your opinion you do not sep¬ arate the acts but take the whole case together ? A. I take into view the entire history of the occurrence. R(-;ross. Q. You don’t consider it an inaccurate ques¬ tion to ask what act indicates insanity if that is what a person wants to know ? A. I do not in¬ tend to say so. Q. Will you define, if you please, the differ¬ ence in the state of mind of a person killing an¬ other while acting under insanity—in otherwords an insane state of mind which leads to killing, and a sound state of mind under heat of passion which leads to killing—what is the difference in the state of the mind or brain of the person ? A. If the act were done in passion I should not ex¬ pect to find any evidence of disturbance previous to or subsequent to the act. What the definite state of the person’s mind might be- Q. (Interrupting.) The question I ask you is purely psychological and automatical: What is the difference in the condition of the brain or of th« mind between a person insane killing a man, and a person sane killing a man ? A. There must be some disturbances in the condi¬ tion of the brain, probably a degree of cerebral congestion, an unnatural fullness, in the insane state. Q. In one case there would be a physical disease of the brain? A. There would bean unnatural congestion of the brain. Q. Would not there be congestion in a very high state of passion when the person was not insane ? A. There would be, but it would be of a different kind. Q. Well, what is the difference ? A. I do not know that I am able to define the difference. Q. Insanity arises from congestion of brain, and likewise a high state of passion leads to a congestion of brain; and now are these states of congestion of brain different physically in their nature? A. Yes, sir; in the case of a sane per¬ son jthere would be no previous evidence of trouble, and the evidences would subside much 84 more completely and more speedily than in the insane. Q. Is not there this difference: In one case the brain is diseased prior to the breaking out of thin transitory ebullition, in the other case the brain is sound ? A. It is not necessary that there should be a physical disease that we are able to recognize. Q. Is not that the fact ? Is not that the theory of Ray, Brown, Bushnell and others, that in¬ sanity invariably arises from a disease of the brain? A. They suppose it diseased, but we are not able in all instances to discover it by post mortem examination. Q. Is not that the accepted theory of all tliese writers ? A. They say it is probable, but they fail to find evidence of it. Q. Is not that the accepted theory as distin¬ guished from actual demonstration, accepted by the profession ? A. I think they are unanimous in the view that there is a morbid condition of the brain. The COURT.—A diseased condition? A. Yes. Q. Now, is it not an accepted theory in cases of mania Iransiloria that that diseased condi¬ tion must have existed prior to the single act which indicates this outburst? A. Yes; that's what I have been endeavoring to have the jury understand. Dr. Byrne—Recalled by Defendant. COURT.—Direct examination resumed. Q. Have you examined the authorities to which reference has been made—Ray, Taylor, Beauford and others—as to what they say on the subject of mania iransiloria ? A. Yes. Q. Without occupying much time to read them over, did you hear the extracts that I read from those authorities while Dr. Correy wasgon the stand ? A. I did. Q. Do you agree or not with his opinion upon the authorities ? A. I agree with him. Q. Is it a well established fact that insanity may be produced suddenly by some exciting, overpowering cause, expend itself in an act, and then pass away shortly after ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Would you consider a person in whose family there was an hereditary taint of insanity, of a nervous temperament, of delicate health, suffering from painlul dismenorrhcea, one in whom you would be likely to find such mani¬ festations? A. Yes. sir. Q. As a predisposing, pre-existing cause, you would place this menstrual difficulty as one of the prominent causes? A. Undoubtedly, sir. Q. Is it not a fact that a person’s mind may be predisposed to insanity, and yet give no out¬ ward manifestation that would be observable to the common observer ? A. Yes. Q. A sudden shock of any kind has been re¬ garded as cause for developing this predisposi¬ tion? A. Yes, sir. Q. Don't the authorities maintain the doc¬ trine that this form of insanity is as clear as any other form ? A. They do; it is the generally accepted doctrine. Q. It has beeu for the last fifty years ? A. Yes; with some for so long a period with others less. It is becoming more g accepted. Q. Some of the English authorities hi more backward in recognizing these < phases of insanity ? A. They have bee Q. It was formerly considered that a mind must be utterly obliterated bap could be considered insane, or irresp. A. That is so. Q. Delusion is not now r considered unfailing condition of insanity ? A. NI Q. Dr. Choate has been referred to. I know whether he goes as far on the si 1 many of the authorities and physician'] believe he differs in some respects, but I particular I am not enabled to detenni does not go so far; I am aware of that. Q. See if you can agree with him toi tent: “ There are cases of sudden outburst nia in persons who have not indicated insanity to the common eye.” That you regard as correct? A. I edly. Q. You recognize that as sound c A. Ido. Mr. BRITTON.—Is that produced Choate’s opinion ? Mr. MORRIS.—I won’t put that! Choate’s opinion. I read from a work tlj in my hand. Q. Did you hear the paragraph I ri Dr. Beauford to Dr. Correy ? A. Yes. ■ Q. With reference to the effect of thj strual and uterine disorders upon th A. Yes. Q. From your experience in those dii you agree with Dr. Beauford that that I ful cause of producing mental derail A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it not a fact fully recognized b authorities that insanity in the family I generations and show itself in succeed erations? A. Yes. Q. And is not that true whether oil female ? A. Yes. Cross-examined. Q. To what extent have you given f sonal attention to cases of insanity ? .. extent that might be supposed of evei!« practitioner. . B Q. You have held no special positional to that disease? A. No, sir. Q. But incidentally, in accordance 1 extensive practice ? A. 1 es, sir. r Q. More particularly you have devJU attention to diseases of the female sex Q. In the testimony which you ll you have given it under questions a* you read those authors for the purpd trial ? A. I looked into some of thei purpose. O. Did you know Dr. Choate persoi No, sir. Q. Do you know what position he p A. Yes; I know he is attached to an ip for the care of the insane. Q. Wlmt place? A. Massachusetts^ 85 hat works of his, if any, have you read ? c any; I have seen references to his ic 3, but have never read any of his works, inferences to his opinions ’were in other s A. Yes. iu were asked whether insanity might r hi! she would shed some tears. Q. Was there anything particular in ht nan ner? A. No. sir. Q. The next day where did you go wither A. Down to headquarters. Q. Where are they located? A. Court n*t Q. How do you go down ? A. In the r. ■ Q. Did you have any conversation uin down. A. I did. Q. Did she say anything to you on tl stth ject of this homicide ? A. She did. Q. State to the court and jury the co:«u* tion, as near as you can remember it? AiU I asked her how she came to shoot tl lit Watson ? She said he had abused her aunl|fl her vile names, and threatened to discha e ha the day before. Q. Did she say anything about the sh ting A. She said she was coming out on the and Mr. Watson was on the landing, rd u 87 1 < her some very abusive names on the cig, and she shot him. J Did she say anything on the subject of the tier of times she shot him ? A. I asked ■ iw many times and she said only once, j Did she say anything as to what occurred »:he shooting ? A. No. I do not know as ! d after the shooting. } 4s to where she went immediately after footing ? A. Oh, she said he fell down stairs 1 le followed him down to the foot of the i) and there she remained until Ellen Cur- ime in from some place where she was at rnment. She said she remained with the l;-or with Mr. Watson until their girl came j.Do you remember anything else she said a g down there ? A. I do not know as I do. i-Did you say anything to her on the sub- t ' why she remained there ? A. Oh, yes, : asked her if Mr. Watson had abused her. i .id he abused her several times, and she il not shake him off, or something of that id I asked her- I MORRIS.—Speak out, speak out, don’t imethiug of the kind. il BRITTON.—It is not proper to inter- )tn examination that way, whatever might tl purpose and intent. L asked her why she did not leave the cnnd go to work with her father, who was ttsame business. She said she could make nnoney with Mr. Watson, that was about l )id she say anything further with refer- ;e) the shooting ? A. No, sir; she said she . jt mean to kill him. I Vhat did she say she meant to do ? A. at he meant to scare him. y Vhat did she say, it anything, as to the pie of her intending to scare him and what ju say to her ? A. I told her it was a very ! air. She said she could not help it. She s try for it. )n the puipose of her intent to scare him u ask any questions ? A. I asked her ; : c 1 not give me any answer ; she kind of ilc ; I asked her what was her intent in n jo, for money or anything of that kind ; nd of smiled and did not give me any IW'. Cross-examined. ou had charge of her the first night of i nest, and took her from the factory to ition-house. A. Yes ; the captain and l- ou had charge particularly yourself ? A. iil her folks were with her. <>• /hat was your object in taking her down ae 1-quarters ? A. I obeyed an order. I- ou were ordered to take her down there ? I is. i- he was in your custody and had been er rom her cell ? A. Yes. I was during that time you pumped these ts it of her, or what you considered to be ts A. Yes. „ j_ 1- r hat was your object in doing it ? A. I nt to get the facts. I • I Q. Were you examined before the coroner? A. No. Q. You were there during the inquest ? A* Yes. Q. In the room ? A. Yes. Q. You were not examined? A. No. Q. When did you first speak about these things, and to whom ? A. I don’t know. Q. When and to whom did you speak of these matters ? A. I don’t know as I spoke about them to anybody except the District Attorney 7 . Q. How long ago was that ? A. Last week. Q. Is that the first ? A. Yes. Q. You never mentioned the subject to your captain? A. No, sir. Q. Nor the coroner ? A. No, sir. Q. You spoke about it first to the District Attorney? A. Yes. Q. You may retire. lie-direct. Q. You was not called at the coroner’s in¬ quest? A. No, sir. Q. Was not you sent for when you went to the District Attorney’s office ? A. Yes. Q. You was inquired of as to what you knew of this matter ? A. Yes. Q. In answer to those inquiries you made this statement? A Yes. Q. That is all there is to that ? A. Yes. Ellen Curley—Recalled by tlie Pros¬ ecution. Q. When you came in that day and found the prisoner at the door as you described it, did she say anything to you on that occasion ? A. No, sir. Mr. MORRIS.—This is in rebuttal? The COURT.—It goes to her state of mind. Mr. MORRIS.—She has been examined very fully as to what she said and what she did, and all about it. Mr. BRITTON.—I never heard of that in¬ sanity until I rested the case. Question admitted. Q. Did she say anything to you on that occa¬ sion ? A. She told me that Mr. Watson was lying in the hall and that she had killed him ; but I forgot to say that at the coroner’s in¬ quest. Q.' This was when she stood at the door— was kicking at the door—when she told you? A. She said that Mr. Watson was lying in the hall—that she had killed him. Cross-Examined. Q. You testified before the coroner, did not you, that she was standing there wringing her hands and moaning ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that she told you to go into the room and tell some one to come out, that Mr. Watson was lying at the foot of the stairs ? A. Yes. Q. You certified to that before the coroner? A. Yes. Q. And that is all on that subject? A. Yes, 88 Rc- tired. Q, Why did not yon state the fact which you now state, that she told you she had killed him ? A. Because I forgot it at the inquest Re-coss. Q. I called your attention to the subject when you was examined here, especially ? A. Yes, sir. Eliza Jf T . Watson—For the Prosecu¬ tion. Q, You are the widow of the deceased? A I am. Q. Where do you reside? A. Hartford, Con¬ necticut Q. Did you reside there at the tune of this homicide? A. I did. Q. What does your family consist of? A Five children—four girls and one boy. Q. How long have you been married? A Eighteen years last September. Q. Where was your residence last summer, in July? A. Hartford. Q. Do you recollect the circumstance of he and Mrs. Hyde coming to your house? A. I do. Q, Did they come more than once ? A. She came twice- Q. About what time did she first come ? A. I cannot fix the exact date the first time; the second time it was the 2d of July. Q. How long before that did she come first ? A- It must have been the last of May or the 1st of June Q. How long did they stay the first time ? A. A. From Saturday night until Monday mo rnin g. Q. Did they come and go with your husband ? A- They did. Q. What did your family consist of on that occasion ? A. The whole family were at home, Q. Did you have any servants ? A. Yes, one. Q. Were they there on Sunday, on either oc¬ casion ? A. They were all there; Mr. and Mrs. Hyde—on Sunday, on both occasions. Q. The first occasion when you was there did you go to church ? A. I did and Mrs. Hyde accompanied me. Q. Was anything said to you by your hus¬ band on either occasion to induce you to go to church ? A. There was not Q. Nothing said on that subject ? A. No, sir. Q. On the second occasion when they came there how long did they stay ? A. From Satur¬ day until Tuesday morning. Q. Sunday being the Fourth of July? A Yes. Q, On the second occasion, were the family all there as before ? A. All there the same. Q. How old is your oldest girl ? A. Seven¬ teen last September. Q. How old is the youngest ? A. Three. Q. Did you go to church on that evening— the 4th. A. I did in the forenoon. Mrs. Hyde went in the forenoon with me. Q. Did you go in the evening ? A. I did | Q. Was there anything whatever said on | occasion by Mr. Watson on the subject of § / to church ? A. There was not. Q. Nothing whatever ? A. No, sir. 0- Nothing said to you on either occasio j the subject of his staying home with Mrs. 11 to take care of the children ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you have a nurse there with your | dren ? A. My girL I had only one ser | She was there and acted in the capacity I wi < to have her Q. What were the characteristics of your i band as a father and a husband ? A. One o i kindest and best of men. Q- What were his habits when in the saint i as to remaining at home ? A. Always at ho, Mr. MOKE IS.—Is that proper testimony Mr. BRITTON.—If it is not I cert : don't ask to introduce it. The COURT.—If he objects, I s hall ha- 1 sustain the objection. Mr. MORRIS.—I object. Objection sustained. Q. Look at that likeness and see if it hi likeness of your husband ? A. It is. Q. Is it a good one ? A. Very good. Q. When was it taken ? A. Three years o Q. Look at that and see whether that i one exhibited by Defendant’s Attorney) i i likeness of your husband ? A. I think it if Q. Did you ever see a copy of that pi g before ? .A Yes, sir; I have a copy. Q. When did you get it? A. My hns » sent it to me immediately after it was ti i 3’o cross-examination. Mr. BRITTON here asked an adjourmut I the court until the next morning in order fc « cure witnesses to show that there wei* scratches on the face of the deceased V i tend to show there was no abrasion what t That is the testimony we propose to go int I do not wish to be understood as abeol^ bound by that suggestion. Dr. Byi'ne—Recalled by the Defend (Dr. Byrne arose from his seat in the fc enee.) Q. You have heard the additional testing Does that change your opinion at all as till condition of the prisoner's min d. A It ■ not Dr. Correy—Recalled by the Ded (And responded from his place in the § ence.) Q, You have heard the additional testinij. Does that change your opinion at all as ti* condition of the prisoner’s mind ? A It >■ not Mr. BRITTON to Dr. Correy.—Is ther* testimony relating to this transaction tbs '* could conceive of, as to the conduct of this* - 89 after the homicide, that would change unind as to the insanity of the prisoner? 1 , sir. ia.e question put by Mr. BRITTON in snxamination to Dr. Byrne. A. No, sir. ’1 COURT.—Can we make any further g ss in the trial to-day ? 5a COUNSEL.—No, sir. ’1 COURT.—The counsel must be pre- e under the intimation of the Court, to go i jury to-morrow. 1 BRITTON.—I shall have to call three nses, whose testimony will occupy an u>r so. I; MORRIS.—I will commence to sum up a row. T COURT then gave the usual admoni- i the jury, and adjourned. FIFTH DAY, ’b COURT convened at the usual hour. i'< [ zo D. Tice — Sworn for the Prosecution in Rebuttal. :• /here do you reside? A. Brooklyn, it® District. >, /hat is your occupation ? A. An under- er l fid you officiate as such at the decease of . Utson ? A. I did. id you make any examination of the 3 eto the wounds upon it? A. I did, sir ; i cision to do so in laying him out and shjg him. r hat did you iind on the face in the way 'Dries of any kind. A. I found a wound in ie left part of the forehead, about an inch ivebe eyebrow. . 'hat ? A. A wound. bruise? A. Yes, a bruise, merely of o side skin, it did not penetrate through iin ; a bruise as one might receive n l from a carnage or a horse and being SS a little ; not through the skin, but just oijir surface, so as to produce blackness. I uc ne commencing at the side of the nose, »ni j to the cheek bone. ;. ow wide. A. I should suppose four- btl or three-quarters of an inch wide—not lar here as to the extremity, i- hat was the nature of that as being ou the skin ? A. Not through the skin, i p luced in the same manner, i- si blood at the time of event? A. Yes; 3 1 vessels of the skin, the capillaries, w: tl out a little blood; not amount to much li are mere abrasions ; get below that, £ i j have blood enough. Cross-examination. Q. Do I understand you to say there is abrasion on each side of the nose ? A at the side of the nose and one across the ) .e. Q. Downward ? A. Yes. Q. One on each side of the forehei' Yes. A. P. Bachman — Sworn for thPr secution. Q. What is your business ? Aim turer. Q. Were you proprietor of the estabhnit where Watson was ? Mr. MORRIS.—It was agreed with t' con sel, and announced to your Honor bn uu that only the evidence would be off u tl morning with reference to the scratch* m li face and forehead. On that annourmu and understanding I have discharge! ill » witnesses, and am not prepared to r ?t w other question. Mr. BRITTON. — That is the most 1 oM ing announcement I ever heard. I sail |uiet to the Court, in hearing of nobody it tl counsel who stood by my side, that th vo* probably be all I would want to offer, it th I did not wish to be bound by this frc 0 ® ing any other testimony I might think irupa and the Court will bear me witness tl I* that. Mr. MORRIS.—Counsel for the disiki distinctly understood that this was u 0 * question to be examined. Mr. BRITTON. —The counsel now: as j Court and seeks to take advantage of a'icull favor. Mr. MORRIS. — It is not taking acadni tage; it is no favor. The COURT.—The District Attorndiifl to the Court he did not want to be ct dinta but that ho would not extend his exai' 1 ^ 01 91 wl not excuse you from examining this h;s. 3 Are you proprietor of the establishment ? !S. 2 Where Watson worked? A. Yes. ^ in the year 1870 did you discharge the felant at the request of Mr. Watson? Jacted to. Does your Honor consider that pd faith, on the understanding had last JW il BRITTON.—The counsel may object to ■ estion, but I don’t like these remarks. SI MORRIS.— I object. That was our ex- s mderstanding, and on that I let our wit- 5S0. f’ COURT.—Does this go any further than s ischarging of the defendant ? SI BRITTON.—No. D COURT.—Question admitted, i. discharged her at the request of Mr. Watson, on March, 1870, from the 1st to the 10th. Q. Having so discharged her, how soon did she come back to the factory again ? A. She got work out of the factory. She did not work at the factory at all by the week after that. Q. At the time you discharged her was Mr. Watson in the city? A. He was out of the city. Q. How long did he stay ? A. About three weeks. Cross-examined. Q. He was up at New Britain, Connecticut ? A. No, sir; he was in Hartford. I did not have the New Britain machinery at that time. That was the Spring of 1870. Q. Was he at work at New Britain at that time? A. No, sir. Prosecution eests—Testimony closed. 92 SUMMING UP FOR THE DEFENSE. ADDRESS OF MR. MORRIS.—If the court please, and gentleman of the jury, I congratulate you that we are approaching so near the close of this important, and in many respects, very remarkable case. And I desire, in the outset, to thank you on be¬ half of my unfortunate client for the at¬ tention that you have given to the case from its commencement, the interest that you have seemed to manifest, the attention that you have paid to the evidence, and to all the proceedings that have transpired. And I beg, gentlemen, your indulgence while I present my views of the case to you, although it may seem, and I have no doubt it will seem to some of you, that I may be unnecessarily tedious, yet, I can assure you that I shall take much shorter time in presenting this case to you, than is ordinarily taken in cases of this kind by counsel for the defense, but I feel, gentle¬ men, that it is my duty to present this case fully, to state all the views that I have in regard to the testimony. This, gentlemen, is one of the most im¬ portant duties that you, as citizens, can be called upon to discharge. You are sit¬ ting here as jurors. Upon your verdict depends the question whether this unfortu¬ nate girl shall live or die. That is the is¬ sue. You are to determine that question, and you are to determine it upon the evi¬ dence in this case, upon the conviction that. that evidence carries to your minds. Shall she live, and go free from this court with the charitable blessings of all Christian men and women, or shall she be sent to an awful and ignominious death upon the scaffold ? That is the issue involved in this trial. Therefore I say, that you, as citizens, can be called upon to discharge no more important or momentous duty than that devolved upon you in this trial. True, you do not pronounce the sentence of the law, and true that responsibility does not rest with you, yet, without your ver¬ dict, the sentence of the law cannot be pronounced, the judgment cannot ecu ted; so that it comes back to yoi have to pass upon the question of death. I shall pass by, as unworthy of yc tention or of my consideration for oi i ment, the suggestion that was thro' by the prosecution in the opening • 1 case, that if there were extenuati i cumstances they rested with anotl bunal, that that was a question for tht i utive of the State ; as though that i have any influence in the determinaa which you wall arrive. You will a your verdict of guilty or not guilty, 1 vi the Executive of the State out of th n tion, and leaving everything elseoulfI question, except the one tribunal iw own consciences. I shall have, b a get through with this case, son hi further to say upon that subject, ne have something further to say wit! el enceto the manner in which this ps« tion has been conducted, and the lei that have been resorted to for the j "pc of taking that unfortunate girl’s life The District Attorney, in openin saj that this is a case of murder or n oil and declined to call your attention > m provisions of law relating to other gw of crime. We accept the issue: ea, no middle ground in this case. It i,'ua| of murder in the first degree or nojnflt of any crime. But, gentlemen, yo du\ is an important one in any othevies The result of your verdict cannot Up4 have a great influence either for (oJ a for evil. As I have told you, the life)! ^ unfortunate prisoner is in your ham; th* should be a sufficient consideration^ a sufficient consideration to induc-roul give the most careful consideratio n um case. But, gentlemen, there areJOUft quences wrapped up in the result <■! trial far more momentous than thlifafj that unfortunate girl. The ques>u i whether by your verdict in this cat W* 1 93 in is to be sanctioned in the land, uannot escape the consequences if you u ;that is one of the consequences that is flow from a verdict of guilty in this •,e I believe in the old maxim as much a? one, de mortuis nisi bonum —speak t f the dead unless you speak well of >r But we would be recreant to our b unworthy of our profession, if in a ie f this kind involving the life of our n. and the question as to how and why i i placed in this position involved in ■ ,se, we should refrain from speaking i It is a fact in this case, and as a tire must deal with it and we must e it. Ifir, gentlemen, it is not necessary that hild say anything more, indeed it was i ecessary that I should say anything inress upon your minds the important tj that now devolves upon you. You 3 fully conscious of that as I am ; i lave already weighed it over in your u Qinds ; you have reflected upon the dice in this ca^e as it has been elicited rr the witnesses, and I believe that rman in that panel now has made up ind, and that nothing I can say will ie or alter it. Yet, it is my duty to !Sit the case to you. The District At- n r in his opening remarks sought to pi3s upon you the idea that he had no s ial feeling in this prosecution, that is here simply in the discharge of an c l duty devolved upon him by virtue 1 oath of office; and I ask you, right e.n the outset, which side, up to this nnt, has manifested the most feeling d case ? I wish you to carry that in uninds in this case, and all through 3 se, because the District At 1 orney has osing argument, and he will again impress upon your minds that he * : 1 feeling in this case, that he appears e efore you in obedience to a duty im- ie upon him by virtue of his official a >n. Remember the suggestion that o make to you—which side, up to this u nt, has manifested the most feeling g 3n evidence of being actuated by de- 3 r victory. What feeling I may mani¬ fest before I get through, you will pardon, because I shall speak asil feel. I shall make no attempt at rhetoric or oratory, I should utterly fail if I did. I was not educated in that school—I have not had the advan¬ tages thatfcflt one for any such'station; what I say will be as I feel, you may be the judges. But I wish in the first place to impress this fact upon your minds, and the follow¬ ing counsel. I will venture to say that in the empanneling of this jury, more chal¬ lenges were made by the prosecution than has ever been made by the prosecution in any case, involving life, in this State be¬ fore. It was not we that objected, except in a few instances. We did not ex¬ haust half the challenges that the law gives to the accused, and those were excused because of the suggestions of my associates and myself without giving any reason. But the prosecution come in here and say : “We are the people of the State of New York, we are prosecuting this case as the people,” and they walk into this Court, called the people, and set four of the people aside from sitting in that panel, without giving any reason or any excuse for so doing, when those four men have answered the questions that show they are competent to discharge the duty of jurors. The prosecution in this case have exercised a power not possessed by the Queen of England. She cannot go in Court, through her representatives, and set a subject aside without cause. There is one State in this Union where it may be done, but it is an anomaly in the adminis¬ tration of criminal law and ought to be done away with. We didn’t ask the ordi¬ nary and usual questions in impanneling the jury, except in a few instances : “Have you read of this case? Yes: Have you formed and expressed an opin¬ ion with reference to it ? Yes.” The law says that you are incompetent. That was not the jury we wanted. My questions, as you will bear me witness, were : “Have you any feeling or prejudice toward the accused that will prevent you from going in that jury box and rendering an impar- 94 tial verdict according to the evidence ? No.” You are the juror that I want. I did not care what your impressions were. If upon your consciences you could swear that you could sit there, and render a true verdict according to the evidence, unpreju¬ diced, that is all I desired. That is all I ask. Was it so with the prosecution in this case ? Oh, no. “ Challenge renewed for principal cause : Have you read of this case ? Yes. Formed or expressed an opinion ? Yes. Have that opinion still ? Yes. Step aside. ” It never has occurred to my knowledge before,—the people be¬ coming in reality the challengers, instead of the counsel for the prisoner. The people come in court and say, we are the parties and we are prosecuting, and yet they set a portion of the people aside with¬ out reason, or without cause, and without excuse. For what ? I don’t believe that the course pursued by the prosecution in this case has been the deliberate judgment of the prosecution, but there are influ¬ ences, as you will see before I get through, that have been spurring up, and goading on in this case. But, gentlemen, District Attorneys, I think, are very much like other men; they have their feelings precisely as other coun¬ sel. It makes no difference how they feel or t! ink they feel, the fact is that they have just as strong an interest as any coun¬ sel feels—the interest of success. They don’t leave that feeling behind when they go into that office. And again I appeal to you for the justification of what I say, to the proceedings all through this trial, from beginning to end; technical objections in¬ terposed here, technical objections inter¬ posed there, controversies with the court, and, I almost imagined, on one occasion, that the court was going to be overruled entirely. But there has been this continual conflict from beginning to end, and I ask you if that is not an unusual spectacle, where a person is placed upon trial for life, when the judge who sits upon the bench, calm and cool, not influenced by any feel¬ ing such as influences counsel on either side, when the judge makes a suggestion ought not that to be sufficient for the a cution? Ought they to step one jj breadth, if they could, beyoi d the si>i tion, against the life of a helpless ere fl It is not the duty of the prosecut i<| strain anything against the life of a lo creature, and I say that in this cas< a ters have been strained from the beg i to the end of this prosecution. Dor recollect when this unfortunate beir a upon the stand what an ordeal she p a She restrained her feelings as mu i possible, but it was with over and < -i peated suggestions coming from cm that she should. But you could he tl words, half choked, as they came t her mouth. And when I stopped the examinat ii chief, and the District Attorney had a examined her, and then when I ar i continue the examination, counsel go and most vehemently objects to the 01 tion, and argues for a considerable t e the court that I having concluded ti< amination in chief, and he having u examined, that I should be bound b; hi foreclosed, and not permitted to pun*t examination further. That is a teaii rule of law, gentlemen, resting in tl'd cretion of the court. But no judge t land would ever apply such a rule tsi a case. Such a rule would not be a*li among the savages. Let us see iff, there is no feeling in this prosecutii;i us see if this is disinterested, a dee elicit all the facts, a desire to get t whole truth and to lay all the facts 'f< you, because good faith requires tit counsel upon both sides. We ha right to conceal; it is our duty to 11 facts come out to you, all the facts ril out any attempt to conceal. Suppose now, I ask you, that I ha * wrong; suppose that I had exhaust i examination in chief before I stoppi; i mit that for the sake of argument, arss pose that I had subjected myself 1 technical rule that would exclude t fi ther facts in the case. Now, I ask ;u candid men, called upon to decid ti case according to your conscience si 95 s« that fact, do you think it would be ■ uty of the District Attorney, if he J take advantage of a technical rule e;lnde the facts from you and to hang it fill for a mistake? I mean, conced- y to be a mistake. Do you think that hs the duty of the prosecution? The n ng out of that testimony in this case 3 ab blood; and I say, and I will stand i that it was an unfair attempt on the rt»f the prosecution. B; go further, gentlemen. As the coun- 1 1 timated in his vehement speech to the in in behalf of excluding this further itiiony, that it was a design of mine, pase that it was a trick of mine ; I will t in the most favorable light to the mention. Suppose that we, the coun- l, ad consulted together, and we had ido ourselves, “ well, now, we will stop dee how far the prosecution will go in isxamination, and then we will resume ” i Suppose that is so ; take it for grant- . It would be perfectly legitimate for us d it, and perfectly proper. But say it a rick, say that we did that as a trick, •r well, gentlemen, do you think it is e uty of the prosecution to hang an un- rtiate being because the counsel have e:guilty of a trick of that kind? Do •u'bink so? Do you think that it is the it of the District Attorney to shut out icnce that might go to her benefit, and lag her ? Do you think so? He rep- sets the people, at least in theory. Do >u;hink now that that was the duty of le vrosecution in this case, to seek, be- u we hadn’t exhausted our examina- ui to close the mouth of this unfortu- it> prisoner and to keep back facts that er due to you in order to enable you to >ri a correct judgment in reference to iif ase? Suppose the prosecution knew t witness who was familiar with facts, h i, if disclosed in a trial, would be a in lete vindication of the defendant ?a st any charge, or a charge of this kind. O' supposing that the counsel for the ec e knew that there were facts, and that ar is that could prove the facts that would 6 complete vindication of the prisoner. what do you think would be the duty of the prosecution under such circumstances? The person who represents the people is supposed to protect the innocent as well as to punish the guilty—a violent supposition in many cases. But what do you think, under such circumstances, would be the duty of the prosecution? Why, to put the witnesses upon the stand. In this very court-room I recollect a case where a person was put upon trial for life, and evidence and facts were in possession of the prosecution which were strongly in favor of the accused. They were suggest¬ ed to his Honor upon the bench, and there was no dispute or question between the Court and the prosecution as to what was the duty; the witnesses were put upon the stand, and the prisoner went free. This is not a case of blood-hunting. This is not a fox chase, this is a court of justice; here is where we are supposed to elicit the facts and the evidence. The people come here in their majesty through their repre¬ sentatives. Is it right tliat they should seek to take advantage of any technicality? Is it right that they should seek to take the life of one of the people, their citizen? Is it right that they should seek to exclude testimony upon the ground that it is im¬ possible for the people to contradict it? Is that your idea, gentlemen, of what is right and proper? I make these remarks to you because I know what will be said to you in the closing argument in this case. You will be impressed with the idea that there is no feeling, and therefore I have deemed it my duty to make the sugges¬ tions that I have made. I leave it to your calm judgment to say whether I am right or not. You are the final arbiters in this case after counsel are through and the court shall have given the case to you. But I beg of you, in advance, do not say that the counsel for the defense are laboring simply for victory, and that the counsel for the people is disinterested and has no feeling, and therefore we must rely upon what he says, when, from the beginning of the case to the close of the testimony, all the feeling and all the anxiety that has been manifest- 96 ed, or if not all the anxiety, all the feeling has been manifested by the other side. So, at least, I think you will conclude that in that respect the defense are entitled to some consideration. Now', gentlemen, what is the case? The counsel read to you the definition of homi¬ cide or of murder at common law'. This indictment is found under this provision of the statute: Such killing, unless it be manslaughter, or excusable or justifiable homicide, as hereinafter provided, shall be murder in the first degree, in the following cases: first, v r hen perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed, or of any human being. That is the sub-division under which this indictment is found. When perpetra¬ ted from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed, or of any human being. Now there is another pro¬ vision of the law to which I will call your attention. Such homicide is also justifiable when com¬ mitted by any person iu either of the following cases : first, when resisting any attempt to mur¬ der such person, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling-house in which such person shall be ; or second, when committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, w hen there shall be reasonable grounds to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished. Those are all the provisions of the statute that I deem it necessary to call your attention to, with reference to this case. My remarks will be addressed par¬ ticularly to the main issue in this case, and that is : is this a case of murder in the first degree or not ? Well, gentlemen, I think that your minds have anticipated all that I may say upon that. I think the conclu¬ sion arrived at in the mind of every one who heard the testimony was but one way when the prosecution rested their case, for, as I said then, they failed to prove a single element of murder. There was some slight testimony that justified the Court in sending the case to you. But I say they did not prove an element. There is auother provision of the statute to which I will call your attention it reads ns follows : No act done by a person in a state of m mi can be punished as an offense, and no i person can be tried and sentenced to an; ( ishment or be punished for any crime or < j while he continues in that state. The District Attorney, in his opem alluded to that part of the statute, altl q not reading it, and he alluded to the « tion of insanity, in referring to the q mon law definition of murder, that it i be perpetrated by a person of sound i and memory and discretion ; so thsll defense in this case had been fully a id pated and the District Attorney was ; y of what our defense would be. Upoibi! subject, I shall have something to say tit- after. Now, gentlemen, you will bear in ul the language of the Statute, becaust hi is important, as the Court will tell y tl killing is not murder. It may not or H justifiable, but there are cases wherfld taking of life would be the highest tfyl that could be imposed upon you,ji where, should you fail to do it, you udl be a miscreant. It must be so comnted from a premeditated desigu ; and i ent clearly formed to do the act, capac it the time to comprehend the nature o the act, and a free control of the will, ar ab¬ solutely necessary elements in the at mission of such a crime. It must b( re- meditated, thought over, reflected uu, distinctly formed in the mind beforilhe act is committed ; and when the inte ii thus formed, when it takes a definite m. and shape and becomes a fixed fact i the mind, then the time that is necessa to brood over it, or think over it is w illy immaterial. It makes no difference o* short a time intervenes between than and the intent, provided the intent isrell formed, fixed, definite, absolute, ceiin. Then it is immaterial how soon thad follows the intent, but that mustbefoied in the mind, the mind must under-no that it must have that purpose and d'g- in view, it must be the intent clrjr formed before the mind moves the ar to the commission of the act. Now’ the language of murder at coni-on law is, as correctly quoted by the Dhiot Attorney, where a person of sound met r? 97 iscretion kills a reasonable creature, ing and in the King’s peace, or as it l be expressed here, in the peace of Commonwealth, with malice afore- ht either express or implied. That t the law now, as the Court will ttll The statute has changed this defini- i s regards implied malice. There is ich thing now. The words of the ie are, “from a premeditated design Eect the death.” Malice prepense of jmmon law might exist without an i to kill, and the killing would be nr. That is not the law now. This i changed by the statute, an intent a formed to take life is the very lie of the crime, an intent premedita- hought over, reflected upon, I care ]>w short the time may be, so long as ind has arrived at that condition, t here is in the mind that formed, d intent of purpose. Then the period rlection is wholly immaterial. Bat rmust be that ; it is the very essence k crime, and no killing is murder un¬ iat condition of the mind exists, and eithat condition of the mind is proven tl prosecution. True, gentlemen, we n tell what a person is thinking about • on know what you are thinking about s oment ; except we know from men’s o i, their appearance, their looks—and QC!' from that that you are thinking of •ongs that that poor creature has Ceiil. We judge of men’s minds, of ir ntent and purposes, by their acts, >b r actions, what they say, what they ai how they look. The prosecution land to show these facts in some ■date way that is recognized by law, ie .aimer that will convince the mind htury, that will be a basis from which W can draw the conclusion that that tl intent. k< oere act of killing don’t prove mur- ■ |f you see a man deliberately raise a dy, discharge it, and the man falls d, ru prove those facts, and the law ifi the inference that he intended to Tiy ? Because the act was deliber- ; i was done with a deliberate purpose and sedate mind, and without any apparent- justification, so far as could be observed by the person who saw it. That would be a case of homicide from which the jury would have the right to draw the inference that the intent existed to take the life. But, gentlemen, supposing that occurred in a room; nobody heard it, nobody saw it: suppose you heard a noise there in the room as if a struggle were taking place, and you rush in ; you hear the report of a pistol, and you find a man lying dead upon the floor ; is that murder ? Oh, no, no ! You infer from those facts that that man was shot by the person then in the room, because there is no other person in there ; you infer he is shot. Your inference stops there upon that state of facts, and you cannot infer anything else. Infer that he intended to kill, from what fact ? Infer that it was not justifiable, from what fact ? Do you know that the man who was shot had not got him by the throat, and his life was not in peril ? From what fact will you draw the inference ? How will you, in such a state of facts as that, infer that it was not justifiable ? Why, you could not; the law would not permit you. You simply infer the killing, that is all. You infer that from the circumstances. That is not murder. Blackstone expresses the idea in this way—and no other author could express himself as clearly as he—in speaking of murder : “ Which formed de¬ sign,” says Blackstone, “is evinced by external circumstances discovering that inward intention, as lying in wait, antece¬ dent occurrences, formed grudges, and concerted schemes to do him some bodily harm.” That is murder, as Blackstone states. Says Lord Hale : “No man can commit a crime unless he has command of his own will,” and the Court of Appeals have decided that frenzy, mere frenzy, is a ground of exculpation. Where there is no discernment there is no choice, and where there is no choice there is no act of the will; and unless the will and the act com¬ bine, or the will precede the act, there is no crime of murder. The will must act; it must be the free act and volition of the 98 ■will; the will must guide the arm, and the will must be under the control of the indi¬ vidual. Unless it is, it is not murder. Would you attach culpability to a machine? Does Deity attach responsibility to any being, bereft, from any cause, of the con¬ trol of the mind that is the gift of the Deity ? What is the mind ? Who will define it ? Dissect the brain, wull you dis¬ cover it ? No ; it is the soul, the immor¬ tal spirit, that allies us to heaven. Every man of common understanding comprehends what we mean w r hen we talk of murder. Every man has paint¬ ed the murderer in his own mind. From the day that presaged woe to the human race, when the first man bom of woman became a murderer, that image has been indelibly fixed in the human mind. We can see the person ; in his eye the light of love and benevolence and mer¬ cy has forever been blotted out. In his heart the fires of hate, of envy, and malice forever glow with freshness. In him there is no mercy, and like the tiger he waits for his prey and strikes his unsuspecting foe in the dark, either from motives of avarice or revenge, and then seeks his escape. In the Louvre, in Paris, before the Commune, there was a picture by some of the great masters; it represented the murderer. There was Cain sitting in the chair, his mind fixed as if intent on some hellish pur¬ pose, and the little child prattling about his knee is brushed away ; the club that is to do the deed lies the^e rough hewn; that is murder. The murder is committed in the heart already. What remains to be done is the simple act. Take some cases that have occurred in our own city. Take the case of Skidmore, who lay in wait with an air gun and shot Mr. Carr at night for money. Take the case of Gonzales and Pelissier, who decoyed the unfortunate Don Jose Garcia Otero from New York on a dark night to a remote spot in the City Park, and there brutally murdered him for his money. These are murderers, and the acts they did are mur¬ der, and they would have you believe that here, now, we are trying an assassin, such as the human mind has painted, su i the law describes, and such as every - ;i you understands. Oh, gentlemen, In I get through you won’t think of s h question ; you don’t now r . No, gentl a we are not engaged in trying a murcai although I have no doubt the prose oppresses her, and say to her, in oi name go free, and you will give hei 'a blessing. Let her not suffer this onl sion a single day longer, but op< ft prison bars, as you will, and let !r| free. What is the prosecution ? What aft they proven in this case ? We oM when they called their witnesses, to ini that the deceased came to his death ini a pistol-shot wound in the hands ft prisoner; that she, in company wi ft brother, purchased this pistol along boa the first of Jamiary. What monb» they proven ? The counsel then co eftj that something more than that m t b proven. There must be a motiv< ft don’t admit that she intended to kil 01 no; we don’t admit that. “Youkftl admit that she had a motive ?” Oh don’t admit that; wo admit that shrift him. Well, then, we must pro vets things. Have they proven them ?Id you if the counsel, in his opening idrft to you, alluded to any motive. I. yH ever hear, in a case of murder, of Ra trict Attorney coming into court ai »ft ing a conviction, and opening his se I the jury without suggesting that thp*ft accused had any motive for com ittiaj the act ? And yet I submit to you ml* this case there has not been a moth sflf gested. But I shall have somethin*) <*) upon that subject hereafter. I km it * dangerous ground for the prosecuo&l tread on. I know they desire to a id 11 99 vhen they attempt to avoid Scylla they iirect upon Charybdis, and I care not {h horn of the dilemma they take, notive ? Oh, yes; the counsel may jin the end, when he comes to sum up ju, that there was a motive ; and as he ihe last speech, I imagine that that is ceason that he didn’t communicate it ; u in the beginning, So, before I get ugh with my argument, I will tell you ; I think he will say to you on that set. /ill, they put their witnesses upon the t ; they attempt to get up a little stage i, but it was very badly arranged ; the iry didn’t work well at all. They 11 upon the stand the person who sold iistol; that we didn’t deny; that her i er was with her, but they called him 3 the stand and asked him what bis i ess was, said, “ Did you ever see that t before ?” We admitted that it was ' isvolver ; we did not dispute it. “ Did iver see that before ?” “ Tes ; by a r upon it.” We didn’t dispute it at ; here is no question about that, Mr. sict Attorney; we don’t make any. ): you sell her that ?” “Yes.” “What k ” “Two or three weeks ago.” We 1 dispute that; that is just what we 1 and the witness leaves the stand a vas done for a little stage effect ; they a d to call the witness upon the stand l ?k what his business was, and then '3 3 the pistol. “ Did you ever see that :o;?” “Yes.” “Did you ever see > isoner?” “Yes.” “Did you sell "at?” “Yes.” Hand it over to the y What an effect! Evidently the lEil is not up in arranging scenes. V have admitted those facts ; now, atlse do they prove ? Mr. Pixley says ■t r hen he went out there that this seer’s brother came down there, and o ng his hand back towards his sister, s.‘I told you not to do it.” I will >wpou before I get through with this e jiat there is not a word of truth in □d upon that you won’t have any it, litSion. What else do they prove ? e S5 roved by Miss Curley that she was standing by the door there, knocking or kicking at the door, and told her to go in, and after she said that she was recalled yesterday, and said th»t the prisoner said that she had shot him. Well, we don’t deny that. We haven’t denied that. We admitted that, and offered to admit it in the first place. That has never been any issue in this case ; not at all. What else have they proven ? They have proven by Captain Woglom that she made a statement around at the station house, and I beg of you to bear Captain Woglom’s statement in mind—take it into consideration. She made some statements around there to Captain Woglom. Do you recollect what they were ? Take them all. Does that show murder, her statement made to Captain Woglom ? Is there the first element of murder in the statement made to him ? What was it ? Why, he had seduced her. Now, this is their testi¬ mony, not ours ; this is what they proved; this is their case, that he had seduced her, that he had followed her from place to place ; she had tried to get rid of him, and she could not get rid of him. This is their testimony ; this is the testimony that they offer, and they ask you upon such tes¬ timony as this to say that the prisoner is guilty of murder. They proved this. This is their witness, this is their testimony : “ He has been the ruination of me,” they proved by another witness as her expres¬ sion. Followed her, dogged her about, ruined her. She could not get rid of him; “persecuted her,” that they say. That is their testimony, that is their case. What more have they proved ? The sergeant, Bunce, testified to some state¬ ments that she made when she went in to him, very similar to those made to Captain Woglom. But there is another officer by the name of Langdon, a detective. I have reserved him for another branch of my remarks, and I leave him for the pre¬ sent. Now I ask you, gentltmen, if I have not fairly suggested to you the evidence for the prosecution ? Do you think it is murder ? They prove that this man 100 seduced her when she was but a child ; she is not much more than a child yet. You have daughters, some of you; I am sure you have. I hope you all have; I hope that you have daughters of the age that this child was when this great mis¬ fortune overtook her. How do you look upon them, gentlemen? As women, with their minds and their judgments formed, prepared to enter into a contest with a man of mature age? Do you so regard them? Oh, no! oh, no! You regard them as children, they are children fifteen years of age. They have proven that this man, then, accomplished her ruin, and pursued her day after day, and persecuted her, and to use her expression, “She could not get rid of him.” That is their testimony. They come in Court—great God! — and prove by their own testimony that the man she shot effected her ruin when she was a child fifteen years of age, and pur¬ sued her with unrelenting feeling for years, until she was driven to desperation and shot him. That is their case. They ask you to say that this is a case of murder— they ask you to convict this child? Oh! gentlemen, hers has been a hard life! She came to this country a child; her father had preceded her. He came to this free land to better his condition, where it is supposed that people have protection. Has she wronged anybody? Bear in mind the history of this child from the day that she landed upon our shores until she fell a victim to the machinations of this man. But I will call your attention to her his¬ tory more fully hereafter. Now that is the prosecution fairly stated. The District Attorney may twist it and turn it and pervert it as much as he has a mind to, but those are the facts proven by him. They cannot be wiped out of this case; they stand as a shield to this pris¬ oner. What is our defense? We say in general terms that Fanny Hyde was an irrespon¬ sible being at the time she shot Watson. And we say upon their own theory of the ease, as my associate told you in his open¬ ing, and very clearly, that accordii their theory, if you believe the state of the prisoner as to what took pL the moment preceding the shooting, it is justifiable homicide. Accordii their own theory, if you take her j ment, and I think you will, as to occurred preceding, because the evi that they have given goes to corrol a her statement, facts that they thenrv have call d out; then if you believe u it was justifiable homicide accordii their theory. Well, gentlemen, strilo her statement as to what occurred and then I ask you upon what evi can you say how it occurred? You heard the doctor on the stand descri i course of the wound, of the bullet. girl is a short girl—you have seen Mr. Watson a man, some describing as five feet ten inches. The ball wa*p- he must have been in contact with h; could not have been any distance, had been a distance away from hi ball would not have gone up as the ■ described it in that direction. Till trict Attorney saw the force of the at once asked the doctor 1 ‘ was ther i thing that obstructed the course bullet?” That is the testimony of he own physician, of their own witness ft Creamer swears positively and dis that there was nothing there to ol the course of the bullet, to the ques the District Attorney; and I say, £i ing to their own testimony, these must have been in conflict, and shti have been very near in order th bullet should have taken that cour. cause if he had been a distance aij could not have taken that course, dispute about that can there be up' evidence? Exercise your own col sense and your own judgment. Ti? height of this man, the height of tb g* and the testimony of Dr. Creamer,® say that it corroborates her statM that he had hold of her at the til & this occurred. He was right there t time, the very time, the moment. There is other testimonv that the;)] 4 101 ■that goes to corroborate her in this ■jukr. They have proven by her that i ed violent language to her on this oc- fa; that he used language indicating i feeling, or temper, at least. The na- tof his remarks showed that he was j ased ; she at that time, at all events, 3 ot pleasing to him in his relations to \ She, at all events, according to testi- j called out by the prosecution, was ; leasing to him, and the language that led denoted that he had some feeling >! and would go to strengthen the ; ( y—the fact, that her testimony upon ii point is true and correct, taken in loetion with the testimony of Dr. ener. ' ibmit to you that they have corrobor- >< by the testimony of their own wit- 553 , or the testimony called out by them css-examination, the statement of the s ler'as to what took place at the very iunt of the shooting, upon this occa- e If they have, then I say that, ac¬ re lg to their own theory and according t ir own testimony, this shooting, un- r ie circumstances, was justifiable, and d the law to which I have called your ;e»ion. f n aware, and so are you, that there i me persons in the community—there n ers, however, are diminishing very n y—who imagine that when a defense iranity is interposed in favor of life, it is simply a resort of counsel ; that hi mere pretense; that in order that CEt defense should prevail the insanity t.ji party must be so transparent and id it that it is patent to the world. In he words, we must have a raving maniac c< rt before we can interpose a plea of is ind properly. And lawyers get up d ipend a great deal of senseless de- ion in regard to this subject; and it cumon in a single breath and single at ce to wipe out all the authors of the >t :ty years, and all the men who have id this subject a study during their r es Yet if you wanted to build a house 'ii mid first go to an architect, and you mi have your plans arranged. You would see some carpenters and mechanics in whom you had confidence, and you would employ them to execute those plans. If you want a portrait painted you go to an artist. If you want a wagon built you go to a wheelwright; and so with every department of science or branch of indus¬ try; you go to the parties that you think have made these particular branches a study, that they understand what you want, that they can furnish you what you want. But when we come to refer to au¬ thors and physicians who have made the mind, the human intellect, and the brain, the seat of intellect, their special study for life, up jumps the counsel in Court and ridi¬ cules the idea. “ Well, is not the theory advanced that some maintain, that every¬ body who commits crime is insane ? ” “ Oh, no; not at all. That is an evidence of insanity itself, or at least an evidence of unsoundness of mind in the person who adopts the theory. No authors adopt that, no men of note. Oh, no; not at all.” Well, I suppose the prosecution will concede, and I think they did concede in the opening that there might be such a condition of the mind that would render the person unaccountable, and not respon¬ sible for any act that they might commit during its operation. I think at all events he went thus far, that there might be a condition of the mind, not in so many words, but I gather from the tenor of his remarks, and I don’t think he will dispute the proposition, that there might be a con¬ dition of mind conceived that would ren¬ der a person irresponsible for the commis¬ sion of any act during its continuance. But, say they, this condition cannot be brought on suddenly, and it cannot pass away suddenly ; that this disease of the mind is of slow growth. Well, there are different affections of the mind. There may be insanity without the mind’s being affected, at least perceptibly, to any per¬ son, or perceptible to any physician or any expert. A man’s emotions, his feelings, his affections may be disturbed and de¬ ranged ; his intellect may not. That is moral insanity, well recognized by the 102 authorities, well understood. The intellect may be affected, the feelings, the emotions, the affections may remain sound. If you see a man rushing at an engine coming full speed, which to bim is as palpable as the air, that is intellectual insanity. His mind is disordered, his mind is not right, his per¬ ceptive faculties. But it is not necessary to go into any elaborate discussion upon the different kinds of insanity. They are various. My remarks will be confined to the particular case we have now under con¬ sideration. If an instant of time, as is conceded may be the case, may render a person account¬ able for his acts, if the devil seizes hold of the heart of a man and leads him to the perpetration of some act that sends him to the gallows iu an instant ? I ask why, if by act of Providence the reason is de¬ throned, the man is not unaccountable for what he does during its dethronement ? In murder, an intent to slay, perfectly formed on the instant, constitutes the crime under the statute of the State, as now construed and applied by the Court of Appeals, why should not the analogy hold good in refer¬ ence to irresponsibility for crime ? If a second can make a man a murderer, why cannot an instant of time create unaccount¬ ability ? The law which says, if a man conceives a murderous intent on the spot, he shall go to the gallows, should also re¬ cognize that if his mind is wiped out on the spot, he, at that instant of time, be¬ comes irresponsible. But, gentlemen, the proposition is not in this case advanced and has not been ad¬ vanced, although it seems to be so under¬ stood by the prosecution, that a mind may be perfectly sound in all particulars and in every respect, a person may be perfectly well and healthy, the mind perfect in all particulars, in an instant become deranged, and in an instant the mind and body be¬ come healihy again. Nobody that I am aware of would ever maintain any such doctrine as that. It is not the doctrine of the books, it is not the doctrine of any case that I have examined. That is not our proposition in this case. What is our proposition in this ifl It is the proposition maintained by a h medical writers upon this subject fo| last forty or fifty years. It is the* trine maintained to-day by all the le J physicians of this land who have mac I mind and diseases of the brain a speed It is that persons having the predispi causes that have been indicated ii]j case may be deprived on the instai'i quick as the flash of lightning, of r a and accountability, and may, during hi temporary suspension, commit some .1 violence, take life, and be as irrespo l as though they had been insane all d lives. That is the proposition. We^ out with the proposition in this case, d that branch of it, that Fanny Hyditf prisoner at the bar, had been seduc I the person she slew, at fifteen years 04 had been pursued by him from tha ii until this occurrence; that her 11 had become broken and she a wreck hi she was suffering from disease at then that her mind was at the time afla under great strain, the sense of so men wrong pressing upon it, great grie:U all these things existing at the timeii to that this assault made upon her btl man, and, like the touching of the ill to the powder, it exploded, and she b ti irresponsible. It is said that is a tfl that cannot be maintained. Is skill now ? Is she insane now ? No ; e not what you would call insane. You heard her upon the stand. We d 0 claim that she is an insane being tli There she is, what there is left of Ik wreck ; there is not much life left tal —it is small, it is but little. But wl 1 tie there is left of the mind is noticJ* we don’t claim that. Now, I shall omit, upon this bran) the case, much that I had intended toll your attention, because you heard t!k timony of the physicians yesterday, id seems to me that it has been renden u necessary ; in fact, I think it won perfectly safe if I should leave it oukl gether ; but as I know that this will’t burden of the remarks of the counsel subject, it is necessary that I should our attention to some authorities in siuce to this subject. I beg you to be ht with me ; I know that you will, s what is this impulsive insanity, as it i ed ? You may call it impulsive, or may call it any other name you like. I l care what name you give it—it is the dion that I have to do with. Names i: nothing about, but it is the fact that (is a person possessed of an hereditary ias one of the superinducing causes, ad a marked change in her habit and pjsition, and other strong indications jedisposing causes; another strong ciposing cause—or evidence, more cy speaking, the evidence that there is singe going on, that the mind is not illy free and right. Added to that we vjthat her health was broken down, >r years she had been suffering from ase, which, as testified to by a phy- of high standing, who has made that ij t his particular specialty for years, •f he greatest importance ; and all the h'ities say that that cause itself is »rh to produce insanity. If, added to t, there is some sudden shock, some answering cause suddenly sprung upon eian in that condition, that that alone nigh to cause this temporary depriva- a ‘ reason that is called by the books iprary insanity, or mania transitoria, minctive mama or insanity. It makes dierence what you call it, it is the fact h hich we have to deal. Sometimes, ■sully on the application of a pow- il exciting cause—mark you, gentle- n, on the application of a power- iy sciting cause—and can you imagine I ore powerfully exciting cause to n£>n this state that the anthors speak ju than the party being in the condi- n i3tified to ? Can you imagine, I say, 7 'ore powerfully exciting cause than en woman, a young woman, is in this id i m ifeij >rt on, suffering intensely at the time his cause, and that a man should ly seize hold of her and make such isition as was made to her—I ask you can conceive of any more pow¬ erfully exciting cause, anything more cal¬ culated to stir the soul and dethrone the reason than that ? If you can, when yon retire to your jury room to reflect upon it, state what it is. I will be glad to know it. But it seems to me that a more powerfully exciting cause could not be conceived than taking a women suddenly under such cir¬ cumstances, while she was in that con¬ dition, and making such an infamous proposition to her as was made, and at such a time. Well, now, the greatest author, the greatest medical writer, and one who is considered by courts in this country and in Europe as one of the great¬ est writers on medical jurisprudence, says: ‘ ‘ With such cause it would break out sud¬ denly—it would terminate in a few hours. It has been called transitory mania, ins an- taneous mania.” Yet lawyers will tell you, “Oh, no ; this cannot be so. Don’t insanity have its period of incubation ?” What insanity do you mean ? What phase of it are you talking about ? Don’t insanity have its periods of incubation ? Yes ; it had it here. It had been going on incubating from the time that the deceased wrought the ruin of this girl. Every pain that she suffered in consequence of that was its period of incubation; every hour of grief in consequence of her suffering was its period of incubation ; every tear that she shed in consequence of this was giving evidence of this incubation. Every wild and frenzied expression that morning before this fatal act was its period of incubation. When she said in Washington, in the agony of her soul, when she was weeping because she had to return to this city, “ I feel that there is a curse hanging over me,” was evidence of its incubation. When sitting by the stove there that morning, in the agony of her soul, contemplating the ruin that had been caused, (oh, what a flood must have rushed into her mind at that period !) and when she said, I wish I was dead, was its period of incubation. Thank God the day has gone by when irresponsible beings can be dragged to the gallows by the idle declamation of coun- 104 sel. It is oar duty as men, it is your duty as jurors, to examine this subject calmly and diligently. The Court will do it, and the Court has done it, and for the patience of the Court and the fairness of its rulings in behalf of my unfortunate client, I thank it. Let us see what the authorities say upon this type of insanity: In cases like that of Mercer, where a man de¬ stroys the seducer of his wife, or sister, or daughter, we often see the influence of the in¬ sane temperament, and the fact assists very much in determining the quality of the act. (Ray, p. 163.) We also know, as a matter of no very unfre¬ quent experience, that insanity may be produced instantaneously by a profound moral shock. Thati8, it may instantaneously develope itself—burst forth from this shock—and then the patient is totally unconscious and irresponsible for any act that is committed. If a person may be deprived of his senses by a piece of good fortune or the death of one near and dear to him, is it strange that the same Tesult should follow an event calculated above all others to stir the soul to its inmost depths ? (Ray, p. 182.) “Oh,” says the counsel, “that cannot be ; it must have its period of incubation. ” world, and when we are trying a def *. less woman for shooting her destroyer * that can all be blotted out by the bres 4 the prosecution. That won’t do, gi|| men. You are not going to try thii« upon any such basis as that. But a the counsel gets up to controvert the * trines that we advance, he must givi* son, and law, and facts. Says the counsel to one of the j a cians—to Dr. Corey—who for ten or < a years has been in charge of an aig where these diseases are treated, wl a made it a specialty for many yean* still, when I asked him the question, k had changed his mind by any of the ti h I didn’t put it in that form, but t;i what I meant—that they had offered* the stand after I had rested : “Well,* tor, could anything that she could a? done subsequently change your m 1! “ No.” Why ? Because the eviden n so conclusive and overwhelming 1 hi mind that at the time she committe lb act she was irresponsible, that he il not believe otherwise. One form of this affection is that of insane impulse, appearing suddenly, without obvious premonition, and disappearing with equal rapid¬ ity. It has been called impulsive mania, in¬ stinctive mania. (Ray, p. 238.) What nonsense, gentlemen, isn’t it, for authors to be writing about ? And yet, for the last forty or fifty years the greatest medical minds of the civilized world have been advancing this very doctrine, illus¬ trating it by hundreds of cases; men who have had charge all their lives of the in¬ sane in insane institutions, who have made this a specialty, say that this is the case. Isn’t it strange that all these great minds, such as Bucknell, and Tuke, and Bland- ford, and Taylor, and Ray, and Pritchard, Costello, Woodward, and many others— isn’t it strange that-they should be for the last forty or fifty years asserting this doc¬ trine, and with unanimity maintaining it, going in courts and testifying to it, courts listening to it, charging juries as to the fact, and juries rendering their verdict in accordance with it; isn’t it strange, when with one breath, and in this age of the The existence of insane impulse and * taneous mania is supported as well 1 A lessons of pathological psychology as by si lated cases. Amid the rapid and tumi Ml succession of feelings that rush into the in the reflective powers are paralyzed, a: A movements are solely the result of him o' matic impulse, with which the reason i< little to do as with the movements of an Ml infant (Id.) And yet, with the evidence in thi» and with the authorities and the fact J9 are asked to hang this prisoner. C ir Not a day or a moment do I believe ilk this reaches you, after the case is sit submitted to you, will you allow thuin of oppression to rest upon her, bij® will say with one unanimous voice, ' .ail that hand and let her go free.” In medical science it is dangerous to a® against facts. If it is dangerous, isn’t it more dan im to senselessly deny them without rooi I wish you to pay strict attentioito paragraph that I am going to readiw an authority : In medical science it is dangerous to against facts. Now we have an i rumen. n* 105 138 related by men of unquestionable corn¬ er and veracity where people are irresisti- ipelled to (he commission of acts while ,j onscious of their nature and consequences, up. 327.) Jinsel seem to imagine in this case i\ if the party had any recollection rat occurred, that that would show it there was an intent to kill and that i 'arty was sane. You have heard her tiony upon that subject; view it either ytake it either way. It makes no dif- e ze, no earthly difference. The author¬ ity and the doctors say, “ Some will :cect and some will not recollectit n proof either one way or the other, t he counsel seem to think it strange it the insane should be conscious of ii an act, and yet be held irresponsible "ing an act that they were conscious a the time. Why, gentlemen, there is king more common. I suppose you revisited insane asylums, some of you. u lay go out to Flatbush, where there ■ ime five or six hundred of those f( Lunate beings, and you will be enter¬ al there by some of the insane very spably. You go into the parlor, and u vill find a lady there who will sit w and discourse most beautiful music o:the piano. She will entertain you it versation as rationally as any person, i r ou would come away, if you were fc ware of the fact, and imagine that 3 is one of the matrons or had charge t) institution. Go through the insti¬ ll, and you will find many in whom u ill discover no evidence of insanity a ver. But ask that girl her history, I ten you will discover the state of her nt You will discover more; you will icier what it was that produced that -tof the mind, that ruined intellect, d aut her up in a living tomb—the erne! the libertine! Oh, I tell you 3r is not an asylum in the land, if all il be told, that would not emit enough m le humanity stand aghast. Aj the force of these facts, gentlemen, is be overcame by something more mingry declamation against visionary ao 3s and ill-judged humanity. 8 They are not fictitious, invented by medical men for the purpose of puzzling juries or de¬ feating the ends of justice, but plain, unvar¬ nished facts as they occur in nature; and to set them aside without a thorough investigation, as unworthy of influencing our decisions, indicates anything rather than that spirit of sober and indefatigable inquiry which should characterize the science of jurisprudence. We need have no fear that the truth on this subject will not finally prevail, but the interests of humauity require that this event should take place speedily. (Bay, p. 327.) Is not this author justified in saying that the interests of humanity require that this event take place speedily, when we have on record the fact that men who have studied this subject, who have studied the statistics of trials where this defense has been interposed, state, that for every in¬ nocent person acquitted under this plea, a dozen,—a score,—of maniacs have been executed ? In the report of the Massa¬ chusetts Lunatic Asylum, the distinguished physician in charge says : Of all the cases that have come to my knowl¬ edge, and I have examined the subject for years, I have known but a single instance in which an individual arraigned for a murder and found not guilty by reason of insanity, has not afterwards shown unequivocal symptoms of insanity in the jail or hospital where he has been confined, and I regret to say that quite a number who have been executed have shown as clear evidences of insanity as any of these. (Quoted by Ray, p. 341.) This is a terrible disease ; it is a terrible affliction, but oh, what can be said when* a person is executed, suffers an ignominious death—when it afterwards turns out as it has in many of these cases that the persons at the time they committed the acts for which they suffered death were irrespon¬ sible. That the mind given them by the Deity was blotted out, not by any act of theirs, but by influences entirely beyond their control, by the act of an all-wise and inscrutable Providence, and that they were unconscious of what they did. Better that ninety-nine guilty go free than that the laws of God and man should be thus set at defiance. Mania, characterized, as in these cases, by a sudden occurrence of brief duration, has lately been spoken of as destitute of a proper founda¬ tion in fact. (Id.) Very lately it has been so spoken of, gentlemen, very lately. But— 106 There is no substantial reason for the doubt, and I am not aware of a single writer on in¬ sanity, of any mark, during the last forty or fifty years, who has not recognized its existence. (Id.') Have all these men been wrong for the last forty or fifty years, all these great minds and intellects that have made this a study for life ? Are you going to say that they are all wrong—are you going to over¬ ride their collective judgment and their experience, the experience of their lives ? Are you going to say, upon the mere naked assertion of a person who has not made this a specialty, are you going to say that those were all wrong, wipe out all these authorities, the medical testimony, and say, “ Well, I guess she was not insane ; I guess they were all wrong ; I guess, after all, her mind was right; I guess, after all, she was not laboring under this insane impulse ; I guess she was all right; we will set these authorities aside ; we will take the chances and hang her ? ” Oh, no ; I am not afraid of that. Most of them have recorded cases occurring within their own observation—“most of these writers and these doctors that have made this a study,” says this author, “have recorded cases occurring within their own observa¬ tion,” that is, they have seen the develop¬ ment of the disease, they have watched its manifestations, and they know the fact. Dr. Jarvis refers to some seventy-five or a hundred cases of this disease. I don’t know anyone who disputes it—any physi¬ cian. Leave out the authors. The authors are a unit upon the subject—all who pre¬ tend to treat upon it. I don’t know a phy¬ sician that disputes the doctrine. There are physicians who don’t believe that a miud can become diseased all at once, or a party become insane all at once whose mind was perfectly sound and whose body was perfectly sound before, and then in an instant all become right again. Nobody disputes that. I maintain no such doc¬ trine in this case as that. The authorities that I am reading here do not maintain any such doctrine as that. That is notour proposition in this case. Dr. Woodward, to whom reference has been made, was quoted by my associate |in his opening ad¬ dress, and lest it may have escapi tention, I beg of you to listen whi again, because it seems to me tha volumes: It may, says he, in his report for 1 some time back, too; the matter wi derstood then—It may be a consolat' encouragement to jurors in folio win own sincere convictions of the law in such cases, to know that in a pie inquiry as to the event in every case < in New England, where the accused defense of insanity set up for him, ai quitted on that ground, it has been no instance has occurred where the time has not abundantly verified the of the defense; a fact which ought silence the false intimations always j such cases, that insanity is set up as sort of a desperate defense. But I have no idea, gentlemen feeling that has been manifest’ case, that it will silence any sut tion, and, therefore, I am taking of your time than I would in i these authorities upon your mini Says Dr. Guy: The most distinguished author home and abroad, have recognized I mental unsoundness as existing indr delusion. The cases on recoid are S‘ that the only difficulty is that of sele i “William Brown,” says thil “ was executed in Manchester ii ( strangling a child he had accide i one morning while walking in th < On the trial he said he had neve« child before, had no malice again:! give no motive or reason why he *8 was tried, convicted, and execute' 1 ! ing the language of Lord Brougl this execution I add that it was t> nal disgrace of the court that ti But civilization has wrought a the treatment of persons eith nently or temporarily deprived Esquirol, one of the most distl authors upon this branch of info ence, while in charge of the 1 Paris—I think in 1793, if I mists' date—by his influence and by It edge of this disease and his hum: succeeded over prejudice and brul struck off the chains from the sw<»< of the unfortunate lunatics, aijl them as human beings. But at* 107 ow were they treated? Bound in !, put in straight jackets, punished physical punishment; all that has l away. This disease is recognized lot as it used to be. A, great many tr from the affliction; I think about four. I think that is about the sta- A great many recover. Science Ivanced upon this subject, and it is ;e in the day to go back to the time they were treated, not as human be- fflicted by God, but were treated as [easts. It is too late in the day to re- ay such ideas as that. We must look ji disease in all its phases, in all its ^stations, and whenever a jury is upon to meet a particular case they look at that case, that particular case, |t all the manifestations of that par- }' case and the evidence as bearing : that, and leave this idle talk about octors, and this idle talk about sanc- \y crime by letting the parties go free, lie talk about the protection of the unity, and look at the case upon the I ce as you will, as it is, and as it has 1 licited from the witnesses. Only one short paragraphs upon this subject will leave it, thanking you for the at- ii that you have given to it. I refer o an article written by Dr. Clark, as a witness in the trial of Pierce, i eminent physician m the western ■' this State. In an article afterwards 1 bed in the American Journal of In¬ ti, by Dr. Gray, in charge of the asy- i Utica, he said: c.efmed the state of mind to be an instan- ai abeyance of reason and judgment, t( 1 of using the words impulsive insanity, 3: is it an instantaneous abeyance of judg- t during which period, whether it be ;e or shorter, the individual would be a i by mad, ungovernable impulses, that b| manifestation would usually be an act meditated, motiveless, and entirely out K>ing with the previous character and :t: thought of the person. It would be * d by some mental strain or agitation— k 3U, gentlemen, it would be preceded by ental strain or agitation—bear in mind itatal strain and agitation of the prisoner, the morning that this occurred- cul- g in a sudden actual shock. It would y be transient in proportion as it was and the transition would most likely occur on the completion of the act of violence. A person so affected, should he commit a hom¬ icide, would be likely to justify the act, or fail to remember it, but would very rarely attempt to conceal his work or fly from punishment. Bear that in mind, gentlemen, in this case. In speaking of Esquirol I made a mis¬ take ; I intended to refer to Pinel; the dates would not be consistent. Well, now, I ask you as sober men, in¬ vestigating this evidence and this case, if this is a new-fangled doctrine that we have introduced to you? Is this some¬ thing invented by counsel for the purpose of freeing the prisoner? Is there no foun¬ dation for it? Is it all a fiction? We bring to you Doctors Ray and Woodward, Blandford, Jarvis, Maudsley, Pritchard, Taylor, Guy, Bell, Esquirol, Costello, Pinel, and others, and we bring living witnesses on the stand who have made a specialty of these diseases corroborating them, and is it to be said that this is some new-fangled doctrine, that this is some¬ thing invented as the last resort of a des¬ perate defense, that there is no foundation for this, that there is no ground for it ? Are we to be told that? Are you to be told that by counsel, and appealed to to lay aside your mawkish sympathy, as it was called in the opening—lay aside your mawkish sympathy, protect by your ver¬ dict the community—check crime ? By no such idle declamation are you to be swerved from the strict line of your duty. I will tell you before I get through how you can best protect the community in this case. I have called your attention to the med¬ ical authorities bearing upon the question presented by the defense in this case, to¬ gether with such general observations as I deemed pertinent to the case. I propose now to occupy your attention for a short time in referring to certain cases that have been tried in our courts—most of them in the courts of this country. Some of them I presume you have heard of, and others I presume that you have not, unless you have given special attention to this sub¬ ject. I call your attention to these cases for the purpose of showing you that this 108 defense and this doctrine of insanity has b -en consistent, and sanctioned by our courts; and as I shall show you before I get through, there is now in this country perfect harmony and accord between the judicial authorities and the medical author¬ ities; that the judges recognize the defense that we have interposed here. They re¬ cognize this form of temporary irresponsi¬ bility in the fullest extent, as fully as it has been recognized or maintained by any medical authorities. I do not do this be¬ cause I think it absolutely necessary in this case ; but as I said before the counsel upon the other side has the last oppor¬ tunity to address you, and I know not pre¬ cisely what arguments upon this subject may be advanced, and therefore I deem it only proper and my duty to impress this upon your minds as firmly as I can—this our defense, and the form of personal irre¬ sponsibility arising from this disease—and then I will show you, or try at least to show you, that the evidence in this case more than abundantly establishes the theory that we have advanced. The idea has been thrown out that the person was not insane, could not be insane, if they knew or afterwards had recollection of what had transpired or taken place. Now it is a well-established fact that per¬ sons undoubtedly insane not only recollect what they have done, acts that they have committed, but it is equally well estab¬ lished that persons insane plan, plot, de¬ vise, conceal, and yet when they do that there is no phase of insanity better estab¬ lished than that they are irresponsible beings. I presume that if you should go out to the asylum of our own county to¬ day you would find persons there confined who would try to conceal the fact that they are insane from you in conversation. Conscious of their own insanity they would seek to conceal it and to hide it. It is time that this idea that the mind must be totally blotted out, that a man must be either a raving maniac or an idiot, before his mind is in a condition where he can claim irres¬ ponsibility for his acts, should be dissi¬ pated. The first case to which I call yo u tion as bearing upon this point g one, occurring in 1795. It is tb i Ann Broderick, and there is an in¬ history connected with it. Mr. Ei the person who was shot in this (> formerly been living with this pel he had left her, transferred his £ i to another person, and settled ti what he deemed to be a competeii subsequently was married to ano i son, and she desired to see him, a him letters requesting an interne’ one of them she said that if nothi « induce him to do her this act of ou justice he must prepare himselix; fatal alternative, as she was de mi that he should not lung survives! delity ; and in another letter she >sa I wish it to come voluntarily from xn or else I will force it from you. Belit that case I would seek you in the fartl. of the globe, rush into your presence, the same rapture that nerved the am lotte Corday when she assassinated tb J Marat would I put an end to the e> the man who is the author of all tl and care that at present oppress tk Ann Broderick. One would imagine that they oU some motive here, some preparatb.m thing of revenge in this talk. Som a« after that she goes to the housa Erringtou ; he sees her approac)# is persuaded to retire to the draw?»l and leave the interview for his nit manage. She enters the house ad quires for him ; is informed that ■» at home. She informs the wife mi is but too well acquainted with e» of that house and she will exaiwl herself. She goes into the drawi;-f» deliberately draws her pistol at slit him. Before doing that she exclus. am come, Errington, to perform r ful promise!” and instantly prij trigger. Surprised at his not f> “8* said, “Good God! I fear I having patched you ; but, come, delivemeU the hands of justice.” Well, upon the statement of s&fcf as that you would naturally sa^sba | clearly guilty of murder. ButiM 109 : he had never shown any signs of it before—that is, that were observ- t< the casual observer. Mr. Erring- eir supposed that she was afflicted • tb disease. She is tried before the . id the Lord Chief Baron charged ir in a very few lines. o'the law certainly,” he says, “required vill should accompany the act to con- : elonious murder. The defense in the it se was that the prisoner was incapable tji her will, guiding it, controlling it, .gsr will to the perpetration of the crime vbh she stood charged. On the whole, j y thought the latent seeds of derange- a>ra convulsive struggle of six months, ->e called forth on this horrible occasion, toverwhelm the senses of the unhappy ei they were bound in conscience to : t Jr.” isgentlemen, is the talk of a judge i£ind in 1795, seventy-seven years his doctrine is advanced there, -e ave lived to see the day now, in ejj of our Lord, 1872, when lawyers e up in court and ridicule the idea h'e is any such condition of mind re :ves from responsibility, and that 1 ent seeds can be suddenly called icim, as intimated by the court here is ase. The case adds, “The jury ilt l about two minutes, and then tlir verdict, Not guilty.” Subse- f ents justified the soundness of vefict. e ise of Amelia Norman, tried in Yds, was referred to by my associate 5 cening of this case. That is a case e is plea was interposed, tried by it(David Graham, one of the ablest rs one of the most industrious, hii; lawyers, probably, at that time ie tate, the author of many able s v on various subjects of law. That ise vas jinterposed, and yet look at tel eration in that case as compared tl. Look at the evidence in that an compare it with the evidence in 1 re was a man who had been inti- vh this Amelia Norman, and as -d p her had seduced her. He dis- nu i his relations ; not in that case, • 1 1 , did she seek to have the rela- d lontinued, but all she sought was when he himself determined to discontinue them that he should make her pecuniary reparation, or should give her pecuniary means that would enable her to get along in the world; and he declining to do that, she deliberately prepared herself with a knife, goes to his hotel, meets Lim there, then appeals t< him for the purpose of in¬ ducing him to furnish her some means of support; he again declines, and she delib¬ erately draws the weapon with which she had provided herself and plunges it into him. Compare that case with this. Say that there is insanity in that case and re¬ sponsibility in this. And yet the jury without hesitation rendered a verdict of acquittal, as my friend said, that rang with applause from the entire multitude for blocks around the court-room, and was approved, and has been from that day to this by the ■ community. And the results have shown the justice of that verdict. Oh! gentlemen, recollect that you are in this case dealing with a terrible disease. It is a mystery, a mystery probably that will never be fully understood or solved in this world, the operation of the mind and the intellect; no oue can define it, no one can tell what it is. Science has shown us that the brain is the seat of the intellect, the seat of the mind. What is mind ? You cannot discover it by dissecting the brain. Science has been unable yet to tell—nobody can tell what the mind is; it is the spirit. Nobody can tell its opera¬ tions except as it develops itself. Ob! what a fearful disease! In what various ways it manifests itself! How many phases do we see in life — how many different manifestations! The intellect, like an in¬ strument of a thousand strings, in order to produce perfect harmony all must be in order. If one is out of order when it is touched it interferes with the harmony; and yet one may be out of order and all the rest in perfect harmony. So with the mind. All the chords of the mind may be in perfect order and sound, except some one with reference to some particular sub¬ ject or object that may be desired; and when that is touched the whole frame gives 110 forth its wail of woe. How beautifully was the dread and fear of this disease por¬ trayed by that pure spirit, Miss Davidson, who lived among us but a short time, and whose intellect, like a fading star, shone for a moment, and then disappeared in darkness. She attempted to describe her dread of this fatal disease, but before she had concluded the paroxysm seized her intellect and it was gone. She said, in the few broken lines that she had completed: There is something which I dread: It is a dark and fearful thing; It steals along with withering tread, Or flits on wild destruction’s wing. The thought comes o'er me oft in hours Of grief, of sickness, and of sadness; Tis not the dread of death, ’tis more— It is the dread of madness ! And yet, with all these various manifes¬ tations of the mind that baffle science, and thwart the best efforts to solve the prob¬ lem, counsel, without a moment’s exami¬ nation, will get up in court, and proclaim that all these doctrines are unsound, and that, notwithstanding the experience of seventy-seven years, or a hundred years, and all these authorities, the verdicts of juries and decisions of the courts, the judg¬ ment of medical writers as given in the books—they will say to you in this case it is your duty to take the life in violation of all law, in opposition to all the evidence, running counter to all authority, disre¬ garding all experience, you are to be told in this case that it is your duty to drag what is left of the life of our unfortunate client to the scaffold and there strangle her to death. The case of Gunn, in California; he was tried for the shooting of Murphy, who, as Gunn alleged, had seduced his sister. He armed himself upon learning the facts, went out and deliberately shot Murphy_ armed himself with a revolver, loaded it, went to look for him, shot him, killed him. He was defended upon this plea, and ac¬ quitted—justly and properly, as experience has shown. I refer you now to the case of Mr. Cole, in reference to which the counsel took oc¬ casion, during the progress of this trial, to say that in that case all law had been vio¬ lated, or that it was contrary to law >< disgrace to the administration of j; that he should have been convict r hung in order to have appeased of justice. He was tried in the city bany, before one of the ablest judges ' State, a man of great experience, w long been upon the bench—Judge t boom—prosecuted by the ablest cou; the State, including the then Att General ; defended by Mr. Bradley,’' Mitchell, and by the late Mr. Bra had the pleasure of healing the a t that trial, and I had the pleasure oi a ing Mr. Brady. It was the last arg it that he made during his life. It was: ol argument. I wish I could prese t! case to you with but one twentieth tt the power and eloquence that he dinj there. It was his last argument but; ol one, and made in a noble cause. I made in behalf of an innocent man, I dication of virtue, and in defense o a mon humanity. Who, I ask you, frc fl day to this, has condemned the finrg the jury in that case except those ignorant of the subject about wbictk talk. Who, I ask yon, has studied t « dence in that case, the history of tl « fortunate man, and says that the veicG that jury was not right, just and pi* Tine, while the paroxysm was suddt ■ seized him upon the meeting of tli nu who had been the destroyer of his iH tic peace—yet there was some evideel that case as in this, that he had s from physical ailmeut, and his mil M body, his physical condition, wen me that the sudden shock, the thougl tbi struck his mind as a flash of light nil);'he he saw the destroyer of his happinei thf reason deserted him, reason for tl ox ment was dethroned, and frenzy, igo* ernable frenzy, uncontrolled by w, b; memory, volition, did its work. ho. ask, that knows the facts and his jo this case says to-day, that the verct« the jury was not right, and does not:*^ as a monument to their honor, and t! fa all time to come, as all such verdict*! I refer to another case, because fai Ill n erred to in certain quarters pend- iitrial, although differing from this: r d the case of Mr. Sickles. In that tire was no attempt to introduce C£ testimony. The transaction was •r the facts were proven, and the 3 ii(l to the jury, you have a right to rn the evidence, whether this man e nnsible at the time he committed or not, and the jury said that he n iponsible. He had shot the seducer s ife. He is not insane to-day. I )t nderstand nor subscribe to the doc- tit once insane always insane, when rord shows us the proportion of ho recover who are afflicted with li ‘ase in its various forms. But what >ei the verdict of the nation in that ' Think of it as you may, I ask you, Is been the verdict of the nation in e: e to that case? Since that he has a ded armies, he has represented our fa at one of the important courts in ■p is to-day the representative. Why, v dd think from what we hear now, t;s whole nation would rise up and k thing must be stopped. Oh, no! ny have had their differences, may efferent opinions, different political n, and different biases, but all can e chord in unison when a question of td comes up—when it is a question b’ by a verdict of the jury the liber- sdl be encouraged in his work, or h • virtue shall be protected and de- 3'by the strong arm of the law and '(lict of a jury, all differences cease, d heart of the nation beats in unison 3 onest portion of the nation in favor i< a decision. e years ago, a long time ago—I think :s hirty-four or thirty-five—a colored t the name of Freeman was sent to * rison, charged with horse stealing, innocent of the crime, as subsequent t showed. When he came out he u g|t actions for false imprisonment i those who had made the false accu- 'tjagainst him. He failed, or was n d in his efforts, and he conceived i* a that he must commence killing, and he did kill four of Mr. Van Ness’ fam¬ ily. It was a terrible calamity. It excited the community, the whole country around about was aroused, and he was to be rushed to the gallows without hesitation. A court was held, a jury impanneled, and he was defended, and ably defended, of course, by the late Secretary of State, the now ven¬ erable William H. Seward. With all the contumely that was heaped upon his head at that time because he would engage in the defense of a person guilty of so atro¬ cious a crime as this, yet he believed, his clear perception and his mind saw—as he supposed—did see, that this was an irresponsible being, that he had been afflicted by the disease —not of his own fault, but by the act of the Deity—and he defended him. He was convicted. The case went to the higher court, and upon exceptions taken upon the trial, a new trial was granted. Pending the new trial, he died in prison. A post mortem was held, and upon the examina¬ tion of his brain it was discovered that, be¬ yond all question, he was an irresponsible being, and was irresponsible at the time that he committed this act, that his brain was diseased to such an extent that there could be no question about it, and there was no difference of opinion upon that sub¬ ject between the doctors. Had it not been for the efforts of William H. Seward—and all honor to his name—when he stood up there amid denunciation and contumely, defending the person that he believed to be innocent,—I say all honor to his name— had it not been for his noble efforts, that poor unfortunate victim would have suffer¬ ed an ignominious death upon the scaffold, been hung, when he was no more responsi¬ ble for his acts than the child just born. As I said, the day has gone by when intel¬ ligent men, men appreciating the responsi¬ bility of citizens, will hoot or scout at a de¬ fense of this kind. You have heard the case of Pierce refer¬ red to. That was a case occurring in the western part of the State, and was tried in Lockport, last October. The defense in that case was impulsive insanity, the same 112 as this. There Mr. Bullock had seduced the sister of Mr. Pierce. He tried to per¬ suade him to marry her. He had provided himself with a revolver, and went to see him. He expostulated with him, and plead with him, and begged of him to save his sister’s honor by marriage. He refused to do it, and the last remark that he made when spoken to by the brother about the marriage was, “ I will see you in hell first,” and upon that he shot once, twice, three times. He killed him—pursued him and shot him down. If a remark of that kind, under the circumstances, will dethrone rea¬ son, upset the mind and destroy all power of control, I ask you, gentlemen, what may you expect of a nervous disposition, a feeble body, pale and emaciated, suffering from the disease to which I have referred, being attacked in the manner in which she was on the morning that this occurred; I ask you what you will say? That she was sane and Mr. Pierce was insane, or do you disagree with the verdict of the jury in that case? Who is it that questions the correct¬ ness of that verdict, what class of commu¬ nity, what is their business, how do they live, how do they spend their time, or who are they that question the justice of the verdict in the case of Eratus F. Pierce? Oh! no, gentlemen. That verdict met a response in that community, unanimous almost—excepting always the class to which I referred—a unanimous response, and so will your verdict, when it is delivered in this case, when it goes outside of this court room it will ring through this community, and receive the response of a hearty amen from all virtuous women and good men. You- recollect the case of Miss Harris, at Washington, who shot Mr. Burroughs. She provided herself with a pistol in Chi- cago, came on, stopping at Baltimore, then went to the Treasury Department, and there, as I have stated during the progress of this trial, watched behind the clock for nearly one hour. She had gone to the Treasury Department directly she arrived in Washington; she watched for nearly an hour, and shot him. Perhaps, as District Attorneys have no feeling and can relate the facts better than I can—I confess i I have feeling—I will read a few lii , what the District Attorney said in tha « in opening it to the jury: I think I am warranted in saying you i tried a similar case before. It is unprecet 1 in the annals of crime. We expect to she h the prisoner at the bar armed herself ^ * deadly weapon in the city of Chicago, th il came to Washington, repaired to the Trni building. After inquiring of the doorli for Mr. Burroughs, the doorkeeper tolE there were two persons of that name ernji in the Treasury Department. She loot the book where the names of the empi were recorded, and, turning to the nai Adoniram J. Burroughs said he was thei tleman whom she desired to see. She wi' the room, turned the bolt, when she sal object of her search standing at his desk discharge of his official duty : her envy w i cited. Good heavens! what'was there to I this unchristian and pitiable spirit! Hovi she measured him, she marked him, she ref : upon his death ; she retraced her steps dov I hall, then, turning to the left side, she tl stand behind a high clock which reached o the floor almost to the ceiling; here slJ waiting for the approach of her unsusptl victim. Great God! what a position • woman. Armed with a deadly weapon j with malice in her breast, in a public buij in the metropolis of a Christian nation, si a w oman con tem pin ting the crime of mi < She could hear the ticking of the clock i could observe the movements of the hi Is there was time for passion to subside, for r* to resume her sway. One would supposm she would have seen with the ey T e of fanu wife pointing to her child—alas! alas! he i norant of the tenable fate that awaited hiif almost at the very moment the instrume; I death is pointed at his back by the assaiii hand. He is walking down the hall in m pany with a friend, engaged in conversi* As he passes the clock the prisoner draw-jd pistol, and, without a word of winning *> curing Attorney, who never have any at ing in these cases. That is the story ahe relates it. She was acquitted by the rj after a very short absence, on the grod 113 ,nity, and to-day she is a confirmed in the asylum at Washington ; has ;en there by Dr. Correy, recently. , it is possible to hang a person who ponsible for his acts, and the case aently be not very well understood. :rse, when a person is hung the evi- : tops there; there is no further de- ent, as a general thing. But in the ■ Mary Harris, the jury did their y this unfortunate being, and she ;is hopelessly insane, and has been e day of that occurrence, sence, who attempted the life of (nt Jackson, provided himself with >i loaded it, went deliberately to the k where the President was attending aeral of a member of Congress, and e.tely aimed it and snapped it at the i ilagistrate. He was defended on pund of insanity, although he had e tely prepared the weapon, and he u uitted on that ground. Nobody, tit day to this, has questioned the li ss of that verdict. If it had been h’e, the result might have been dif- t. We have seen, lately, a farce en- i England that must be looked upon ri be looked upon always by all na- a 1 all men of intelligence as a farce. 7 convicted, for attempting to force >uen to sign a petition, of an assault, is ictually sent to prison for a year, adf sending him to an asylum, where tg; to have been sent. I will venture 7 at there is not one man in a mil- D' one physician in ten thousand, wild hesitate for an instant to say tit was the act of an insane person 91 le that it was committed. w,;entlemen, having called your at- 'n o a few of these cases—many I or tted because time is progressing, I )n’t want to weary you—I have ca d your attention to a few of the a g >nes; let us see, and I desire to ier e them right here, whether or wp the predisposing causes in this at I desire you to carry them in m ds as I state them. I shall not ss em at this point. First. We say we have shown by evi¬ dence here uncontradicted and beyond question, that there was hereditary predis¬ position in the family. We say that this is established by the evidence in this case without any dispute. Second. We say that w r e have shown a change of temperament, the accused be¬ coming irritable, less attentive to.her ap¬ pearance, and that these are regarded as strong indications of some change going on in the mind, and, the mind of the per¬ son thus changed, that predisposes it to any sudden convulsion from any sudden shock, from any sudden cause. I won’t stop to call your attention to the authori¬ ties on the subject; I have them noted here upon my points. I will not weary you by calling your attention to the authorities; I say the authorities place great stress upon that as one of the indi¬ cations. Third. Then we say we have shown in this case great misfortune and grief. Fourth. We say that on the day that this occurred, the evidence shows beyond any peradventure that some overpowering subject was oppressing the mind of the accused; that there was some trouble weighing her down; that there was some¬ thing preying upon her mind, unnerving her; that she didn’t act naturally, didn’t look naturally; that there was evidence of something oppressing her mind, some great weight and overwhelming grief. Fifth. We say that we have shown in this case that she was suffering from one of the most fruitful causes calculated to fit a subject for the reception of just such a manifestation of insanity as was brought out by this sudden shock, this sudden as¬ sault that was made upon her. And we say further, gentlemen, that all these causes combined in this one case, when the medical testimony is and the medical authorities say that if a subject possessed either one of them, it would not be strange to find such manifestations of insanity. And yet we have them all com¬ bined here, all in the one person, and you are asked to set all this aside, and to say 114 that in this case this prisoner at the time she committed this act did it delib¬ erately and intentionally, and that it was prearranged in her mind, thought over, conceived, reflected upon. I shall call your attention for a few mo¬ ments, and I will be very brief, to the legal standard of accountability. My purpose is to show that there is perfect hannony between the legal and judicial standard of accountability with reference to these cases and to this subject. A knowledge of right and wrong, of good and evil, were former¬ ly held in England to be the tme criterion of accountability. Of course there is no such criterion now suggested in England or in this country. It is not the test at all. Lord Chief Justice Mansfield once held this doctrine, and promulgated it in the case of the unfortunate Bellingham, tried for the murder of Perceval. Lord Lynd- hurst modified the doctrine a little in the case of Oxford, by saying that “ if he didn’t know when he committed the act, what the effect of it if fatal would be, with reference to the crime of murder,” he was not guilty. Even this modification would have saved the unfortunate Bellingham, yet there is not a judge in England or this country, who would assert this to be the law now with reference to the accounta¬ bility of the insane. The medical juris¬ prudence of insanity up to a very late period has been vague, contradicting, conflicting, and uncertain. You will allow' me to read a paragraph here to show' how- uncertain and unsettled a few years ago the law was in England upon this subject. Butwe are advancing, science is advancing, knowledge is advancing, with reference to this subject as with reference to all other subjects. One principle after another, says this great author, has been successively abandoned and resumed, either with the sternest disregard of con¬ sistency or the most extraordinary ignorance of previous decisions. Thus, the old maxim that insanity does not annul criminal responsibility in one who retains the power of distinguishing right from wrong, was abandoned in the case of Hadfield, re-affirmed in that of Bellingham, again abandoned in that of Martin, modified though approved in the same year by Lord Lyndhurst, and again, in the year 1837, a jury holding'in their hands the life of a fellow mi are told by Mr. Justice Park, that, as rega the effect of insanity on responsibility for crii “it is merely necessary that the party sho have sufficient knowledge to discriminate tween right and wrong.” In the trial of Oxf three years later, this doctrine w’as repudia by Lord Denham ; and three years later, in trial of Higginson, it was re-affirmed by Mr. 1 tice Maule. The test was again held up, in original nakedness, in the case of Stokes, (18 -1 when the Court, Baron Rolie, said that “ ei ■ man is held responsible for his acts to the ■ of his country, if he can discern right fi i wrong.” Well, gentlemen, if at so short a perl back, thirty or forty years ago, the jud i in England, the great minds there, 3 great judges, were so uncertain in reg 1 to this question of account ability, i question of responsibility, so ignorf upon this subject, I ask, will you sit h s having the life of this prisoner in j i hands, in view now of the advanced science upon this subject, and incretd investigations, in view of all the disco r- ies that have been made, in view novi the decisions of the courts aud of t. << great authors, that are uniform, will >n say that, notwithstanding we have advai d in science, notwithstanding our know! ? has progressed with reference to these b- jects, notwithstanding all these aut r* say that now there is no test, that we n- derstand more of this disease than weid before, notwithstanding judges procla ii from the bench in this country, from li- fornia to New York, and throughout be whole land, are you to say, well, we ill go back, we will go back to the uncer n- ty that existed in England forty years?*, and we will hang this woman by that le- and we will acquit that man by an aw rule, which, if it had been applied hdw one hung before, would have acqu^d that one ? Will you go back to the rion of uncertainty, and pass upon the I*.® a prisoner, or will you take now tl knowledged authorities upon this ]iit medical and judicial, and say, upon we stand, upon them we plant oursrw. to them we pledge our consciences M right or wTong, we are free ; we have out according to law, according to the atH# 1, ities, and according to evidence, al ^ 115 canee, a person has been set free who ;. not to have been, you will have the .station of knowing that you discharged ifluty conscientiously, j'd Hale repudiated partial insanity i efense, and held that there must be cil obliteration of the mind. This rv doctrine was first subverted in lid’s case, where the great Erskine rht his giant intellect to bear, al¬ ii h I will show you in a moment, with nice to a case to which I have ad- t( he changed his opinions with ref- i' to this question of insanity. With giat intellect, his great learning and g;at research, he admits as much as a|i if he had been on the jury in a ;ai case he would have convicted the tjand yet he says that he was mis- iiin his view in regard to this question tc iunt ability. hren’t come yet to the question of b There is nothing but doubt in this i, oubt upon every point—it was hard- o le dignity of that, even, fir these various conflicting authori- id decisions, and this vacillating rs of the courts in England that I e tiled your attention to, in 1840, the tr e began to dawn upon the courts a e ore clearly, and then insanity was dji, first into a total intellectual insan- P'tial intellectual insanity, total moral -fif, partial moral insanity. el ion, said Lord Erskine, when there is re y or raving madness is the true charac- >f sanity, and when it cannot be predicated n a for life or death for a crime, he ought h ny opinion, to he acquitted. o' I read you a sentence or two from r larks of Lord Erskine in reference hi irst case to which I called your at- dc, reported in a volume I have here ■el irated trials tried in 1795, the case dr Broderick : nit be a consolation, he says, to those ~ iecuted her, this is Lord Erskine, that acquitted, as she is at this time in a most id and deplorable state of insanity. L nfess, if I had been upon the jury who ,i|: I should have entertained great doubts o iculties; for although this unhappy iaipad before exhibited strong marks of ail arising from grief and disappoint¬ ment, yet she acted upon facts and circum¬ stances which had an existence, and which were calculated upon the ordinary principles of hu¬ man action, to produce the most violent resent¬ ment. Mr. Errington had just cast her off and married another woman, or taken her under his protection. Her jealousy was excited to such a pitch as occasionally to overpower her understanding. But when she went to Erring- ton’s house, where she shot him, she went for the express and deliberate purpose of shooting him. She didn’t act under a delusion that he had deserted her when he had not, but took revenge upon him for an actual desertion.” If such great minds as these will differ in regard to this question, are we to send an unfortunate creature to the gallows, saying that, to our minds, the case is so clear that there is no reasonable doubt upon the question of the responsibility of the party at the time of the commission of the act ? Liberty of will and of action is absolutely essential to criminal responsibility. Insanity, says the same great author, is a disease before the prospect of which the stoutest heart may quail, but how much more ap¬ palling is it made by the reflection that in some slight paroxysm it may be followed by legal consequences that will consign its unhappy subject to an ignominious death. Shocking as it is for one bearing the image of his Maker to take the life of a fellow-being with brutal ferocity, how shall we characterize the deliber¬ ate perpetration of the same deed under the sanction of the law. Upon this subject I read a brief extract from Dean’s Medical Jurisprudence, as reported in this case. (Fair trial.) Irresponsibility, where it arises from deranged or perverted action, should absolve from all ac¬ countability ; because, first, the act is unavoid¬ able, and the actor, therefore, no more a subject of punishment than a machine for going wrong when some part of the machinery is out of order. To administer punishment under such circumstances would shock all the moral sym¬ pathies of man. And as referred to by my learned asso¬ ciate in his opening, says Dr. Bell, that “ for every real criminal acquitted on the score of insanity, there have been a dozen maniacs executed.” You all recollect the grand doctrine, the merciful doctrine, and where and by whom it was enunciated: “It is better that ninety-nine guilty go free than that one innocent should be pun¬ ished.” Now a word or two with regard to the judicial view of this subject. Says Chiei 116 Justice Shaw, one of the ablest judges Massachusetts ever had : In order to constitute a crime, a person must have intelligence and capacity enough to have a criminal intent and purpose ; and if his reason and mental powers are either so far deficient that he has no will, no conscience or controlling mental power, or if through the overwhelming violence of mental disease his intellectual power is so far. for the time, obliterated ; he is not a responsible moral agent and is not punish¬ able for criminal acts. Upon this point I desire to call your at¬ tention to a case that has occurred in our own State, decided by the Court of Appeals, where they refer to this doctrine. Judge Brown says : I read from the case of The People against McCann, reported in 16th New York—that decision is in no wise modified or changed by the decision in the cases of The People against Ferris— (35 N. Y., and Walter 32 N. Y.)—these de¬ cisions don’t change at all the doctrine laid down in this case. It consequently is, says the Judge, true that Sanity is the normal condition of the human mind, and in dealing with acts, criminal or otherwise, there can be no presumption of in¬ sanity. But it is, not true, I think, upon the traversing of an indictment for murder when a defense of insanity is interposed and the homi¬ cide admitted or not disputed, that the issue is reversed and the burden shifted. The burden is still the same aud it still remains with the prosecution to show the existence of those requisites or elements which constitute the crime, and of this the intention or malice-ani¬ mus of the prisoner is the principal. In referring to the charge of the Judge, which is overruled by the Court of Ap¬ peals, he says : The doctrine of the charge proceeds upon the idea that the homicide is per se crime, that the mere destruction of human life by the act of another is, without any other circumstances, murder, or some of the degrees of manslaughter. That is the doctrine here in this case ; there is the killing and that is all there is in the case : The killing of a human being by another is not necessarily murder or manslaughter, it may be either excusable or justifiable homicide ; it may have been effected under either of those conditions referred to by the elementary writers, in which the will does not join with the act, and then it is not criminal. Sound memory and discretion at the time of the killing is often¬ times the only material question in the trial oi an indictment for murder. They are essential elements of the crime, to be established upon the trial as a point of the case of the prosecu¬ tion. “A vicious will, without a vicious w says Blackstone, “is no crime.” So, on other side, an unwarrantable act, withoni vicious will, is no crime at all. So that to c stitute a crime against human laws, there m be first a vicious will and secondly an unlaw act consequent upon such vicious will If th be a doubt about the act of killing, all will c elude that the prisoner is entitled to the ben of it ; and if there be any doubt of the fact of the prisoner to discriminate between ri, and wrong, why should he be deprived of benefit of it when both the act and the will necessary to make it a crime. But if the proof leaves it in doubt whet the act was intentional or accidental, if scales are so equally balanced that the jury c not safely determine the question, shall not prisoner have the benefit of the doubt, ant he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt in gard to the malicious intent, shall he not be titled to the same benefit upon the questioi" his sanity and his understanding ? Recorder Hoffman said, in the case’ Wagner: I have been requested to charge you, thi t the prisoner committed the act in a momen ( frenzy, he cannot be convicted of murder in ) first degree. I not only charge that prop- tion, but if his mind was in that condition.; cannot be convicted of any offense. Judge Crawford, in the case of Sick, said : The law does not require that the insa:r which absolves from crime should exist for f definite period, but only that it exists at e moment when the act occurred with which e accused stands charged. I will read once more upon this bran of the subject and then pass on : A prisoner must have sufficient memory, i- telligence, reason and will to enable him to t- tinguish between right and wrong in regar o the particular act about to be done, to k » and understand that it will be wroug, and it he will deserve punishment by committinft. He must have intelligence and capacity enob to have a criminal intent and purpose, an if his reason and mental powers are either sc> ficient that he have no will, no controlling r)- tal power, or if, through the overwhelrig voice of mental disease, his intellectual pot is for the time obliterated, he is not a resp- sible moral agent, and is not punishable ft criminal acts. But the counsel will say, she provid herself with a pistol, and he will ring to changes on that all through. She wen# this store with her brother ; she conti- plated this murder ; she bought this pisl; it was loaded ; and you will hear ringing all through this case, from be li¬ ning to end. She bought the pistol; i® ctemplated this at this time; this was i arranged ; this was preconcerted ; this r understood in advance; as I have aed your attention to many cases where sties have purchased or provided them. » es with weapons, and that that is not trange freak of the insane, I hardly Ink that I need say much more upon the uject. But I know how it will be urged, fc ill be said that sane people contemplate ne, go and purchase revolvers, or pre- a; themselves with the weapons with rh h to commit crime, and that Fanny l ie went and purchased a revolver, and rt, Fanny Hyde is a sane being and was m at the time this shooting took place, ltough this revolver was purchased :as before and laid away in the bureau lire r; given as a present to her husband; uladed as a present to her husband ; in- n.ed as a New Year’s present, but be- aie she hadn’t the means, having to pay ei, it was postponed for a few days. You dhear the changes ring upon the revol- ■ei She bought the revolver, she went ’.i the brother and bought the revolver. rV>, gentlemen, if the insane never pro- icd themselves with the weapons with -hh they commit the homicide, there ie v r would be any one placed upon trial oriuch an offense and we would know loling about these cases. But the fact is he do provide themselves with these nsuments. Amelia Norman provided leiilf with the weapon of death ; Gunn, ;rii in California, did ; Sickles did ; -le ge W. Cole did ; Daniel MacFarland -iid the poor unfortunate negro that I iai alluded to, (defended by Seward.) iid Eratus F. Pierce did; Mercer did ; ha 'ence did ; Griffin did ; Mary Harris, Qoi hopelessly insane in the asylum at Wa, lington, did ; all these provided them- seh|s with the weapons of death in ad- va®, and yet we are to be told, in this '•as that this person is sane, because she, we< ° f it t: tioi son. s before, made her husband a present pistol, and was w’th her brother when 3 purchased. Let me call your atten- to this subject, it may be new to The insane, says Esquirol, group and ar¬ range their ideas, carry on a reasonable conver¬ sation, define their opinions with subtlety and even -with rigid severity of logic, give rational explanations, and justify their acts by highly plausible motives.” "Winslow also says when speaking upon this subject: I refer to the subtle quickness of apprehen¬ sion, ready wit, biting sarcasm, great power of self control, extreme cunning and extraordinary shrewdness of the insane, as well as the wonder¬ ful mastery they have occasionally been seen to exercise over their acknowledged delusions while under the scorching an; lysis of the ablest and most accomplished advocates of the day. You have all read enough of history to remember the case in which an insane per¬ son baffled the great Lord Erskine. A man, insane, by the name of Wood, had procured the indictment of Conrow, in London, for false imprisonment. The case came on and was tried, and upon the trial, he being the principal witness, it was dis¬ covered he was insane upon a particular subject, and he was defeated in the trial. He procured a second indictment and the case was tried, and for one whole day he baffled court and Lord Erskine to discover the slightest evidence of his insanity. He knew what they wanted and what they were trying to do, and he had will enough to baffle them ; and yet there was no doubt about his insanity. And yet we hear peo¬ ple talking about this subject as flippantly as though they had made it the study of their lives. They think there can be no such thing as insanity unless they see a person rushing along the street like a rav¬ ing maniac. That is the evidence to them of insanity. They forget the structure of the human mind, that nobody yet has been able to discover, but only that it is made up of many chords. One may be out of order and the others not. Balfour Brown, an eminent authority, and a recent author upon this subject, says : Nothing is more common than to find per¬ sons who are undoubtedly insane managing their own affairs with much practical ability. And yet this idea would be scouted or hooted by some. “ Oh, ” says the counsel, “ is not the idea ad¬ vanced that the majority of people are insane ? ” No, there is no such doctrine advanced 118 by any person of sense. No person of sense or intelligence advances the idea that the majority of people are insane. But we do maintain the doctrine that it is not nec¬ essary for a man to be a raving maniac in order to bring him within the pale of legal irresponsibility. Lord Eldon relates a case where he had repeated conversations with a person who was his own client. A com¬ mission of lunacy had been applied for and he was employed in the case, and so con¬ vinced was he of the sanity of this man that he went to Lord Thurlow and induced him to supersede the commission, and this insane person, calling upon him imme¬ diately afterwards to thank him for his ef¬ forts in his behalf, convinced Lord Eldon that the worst thing he could have done was to have had the commission supersed¬ ed, because he was convinced of the insan¬ ity of the man. It is a matter of history that Tasso wrote some of his most impas¬ sioned and elegant verses during par¬ oxysms of insanity. Lucretius wrote his immortal poem, De Rerum Natura, while laboring under mental aberration. Alex¬ ander Cruden compiled his concordance of the Bible while insane, and some of the ablest articles in Aiken’s biography were written by a patient in an insane asylum. The most sublime inventions have sprung from the brain of those laboring under mental diseases. Exquisite statuary has stood up at their bidding, the canvas has breathed life at the touch of the insane. And yet the doctrine is to be enforced in this case that the prisoner is to be hung because before she committed the act she didn’t act like a raving maniac. It is not strange that the prosecution deny all these doctrines and all these authorities, medical and judicial, deny the experience of all the great men that have lived, because, before they can advance in this case one single step, they must all be trampled down under foot and passed aside as a feather’s weight. But you, gentlemen, will not pass them aside so lightly—not in a case of this kind, where we stand to plead the cause of right, the cause of justice and the cause of humanity ! We stand here to plead in be¬ half of a girl who has been scourge persecuted to madness. We stand l denounce the crime that has brougl to this position. “ Thou shalt not c* adultery,” we read in the Seventh mandment, and in the Tenth, “ Thoi not covet thy neighbor’s wife,” j through the Old and New Testame: penalty of death is denounced agai: adulterer. I am sure you will exci if I read an extract relating to this f | from one that has passed away. I r the great War Secretary, who ga mighty energies and intellect to the i ervation of this gigantic republic, w the finest feelings and appreciation male virtues. In defense of a perso i] trial for his life, defended upon the s insanity without a particle of me die timony, he uses this eloquent langoe The pride and glory of the family is 1 of brothers and sisters. Sprung from t a love, with the same blood coursing i f veins, their hearts are bound together b < which death cannot sever; for, wide asi le may be the graves of a household, v« may be their life here on earth, wh< 1 rough ocean is passed, sooner or later t f' rejoice on the heavenly coast — a falj heaven. But when the adulterer puts •« wife asunder from her husband, her chi is off from all kindred fellowship. The a) ionship and protection of a brother of I ■ blood can never be her’s. No sister of t, s blood can ever share her sorrow or r; Alone, thenceforth, she must journey ro life, bowed down with a mother’s slum i does the evil stop here. It reaches n to aged and venerable parents of the 'ifc husband and of the ruined wife, and cU around to the circle of relatives and fri« Is t cluster around every hearth. SuchaiJ» suits of the adulterer’s crime on the h ie- the home, not as it is painted by t! !> fancy, but home as it is known and re«M by the law'—as it exists in the house! i 1 as it belongs to the family of ev< n They show that the adulterer is the fotf* 1 social relation, the destroyer of every affection, the fatal enemy of the family ad desolator of the home. The crime b #j 1 adulterer is pronounced to be one whi of no ransom and no recompense. Wi®f ceive why it is that in every book otfM and New' Testament it is denounced. is, that by every' holy lawgiver, proA < saint it is condemned. We can u® 1. 119 ?! it is that twice it is forbidden in the Ten .'umandments, and why it is that Jehovah diself, from the tabernacle in the midst of iicongregation, declared that “the man who omitteth adultery with another man’s wife, v he who committeth adultery with his lehbor’s wife, shall surely be put to death.” hlod’s own ordinance he was to be stoned to le b, so that every family in Israel, every man, -vcian, and child might have a hand in the 'U shment of the common enemy of the family, ijhe Levitical law, the adulteress was subject o ie same punishment. But the Redeemer of ai kind, when on earth, is supposed to have heated the punishment of the adulteress by Miring him who was without sin to cast at te the first stone. No such condition, how- vi was imposed in favor of the adulterer, ’be was no mitigation of his crime, and we nv the Savior’s judgment of the sin when leleclared that “he who looketh at a woman o 1 st after her committeth adultery in his les.” ho can portray the one-millionth part •f he evil, misery, and woe existing in hi world to-day which has been caused >y ibertines? Go to your asylums; go, -s ly eloquent associate told you in his P|iing, to the gilded palaces of hell, 'e >ld their fallen inmates, and learn the aie of their ruin—and the same story of ;h( blighting influences of the libertine’s uh will be told. y to the lower dens of degradation, mi behold their miserable inmates, once l>u i> “ created a little lower than the Is,” now lost to every womanly in- d] t, living in filth, associating with the dhfc, whose every word is blasphemy, mwhose very touch is death—and then o' will see the handiwork of the liber- txn 7 to our asylums for the insane, those ’ w: l tombs of the living dead, and see me ifferent phases of insanity; go through ike female portion of it, ascertain the ms of their malady. See that female, eiK beautiful and fair, with her scorched lips her wild and sunken eyes, pressed igkist the door of her cell, and listen to the id story of her misery and woe. Anon ■he ireaks out into some broken strain ha was familiar in her childhood before the bertine had breathed upon her. Then she ill pray fervently to be permitted to go him, (her destroyer;) and then, as if stnjk with a serpent’s tooth, she cries out maledictions, and calls down the curses of God upon his head. Again she will shrink down tremblingly in the corner of her cell, where, chained to the barren rock of the past, the one perpetual memory, with beak and talon more relentless than the vul¬ ture’s, preys ceaselessly upon her vitals. The name she calls may not be Watson, but it is the name of him who has caused neither more nor less ruin. Oh! gentle¬ men, no man can conceive of the misery that exists in the world to-day, following on the track of the libertine. Wherever you go you will find desolation and sorrow and misery in his track. And so will it ever be; and when man and all his race shall have disappeared from this planet, ask every particle of air still flowing o’er the unpeopled earth, and it will record the misery caused by the libertine — blighted intellects, blasted hopes, ruined homes, and dishonored graves. Interrogate every wave that breaks uninterrupted on ten thousand desolate shores, and it will give evidence of the last gurgle of the waters which closed over the heads of their unfortunate dying victims. Now gentlemen, I will occupy your attention but a short time longer while I speak more directly to the evidence and the facts of the case. The evidence in this case, outside of the medical testi¬ mony, can be very briefly stated. As I said to you, the prosecution start out with the proposition that this is murder in the first degree or nothing, and that we accept that proposition. We say that it is mur¬ der in the first degree or nothing; and we say further, that you are to decide this case upon the evidence, and we don’t ask you to decide it upon the ground of sympathy as was intimated by the counsel in his opening. All that we ask in this case is that you will apply the rules of law as the Court will give them to you to the evidence that has been given by the wit¬ nesses, giving that evidence its just and proper weight, and then, if alter you have done that you say that you have no doubt in your mind that the prisoner at the bar is guilty, ought to be hung, say so by 120 your verdict. But do not, I beg of you, upon any insidious insinuation of the District Attorney, that notwithstanding your verdict of guilty, she may not be hung, she has an appeal to the Governor, and she can go there for executive clem¬ ency, and she may not be hung, your ver¬ dict may not result in her death and there¬ fore you need not be so afraid or so care¬ ful about finding a verdict of guilty. That was, as I understand, the intimation of the District Attorney. Whether there are mitigating circumstances he didn’t condescend to tell you. I don’t know what he considers or what he will consider mitigating circumstances in this case. That he will tell you I presume when he comes to address you. But we accept the issue tendered by the prosecution, that this is a case of murder in the first degree, that she is guilty of murder in the first degree or nothing, that your verdict must be either guilty or not guilty. Having gone over the medical portion of this case, so far as the author¬ ities are concerned, medical and judicial, I desire to come directly to the testimony. There are one or two points in the testi¬ mony for the prosecution that I desire in the first place to allude to, the first is the testimony of Mr. Pixley. Mr. Pix- ley says that after he went out where Mr. Watson was lying, at the foot of the stairs, while he was there the first man that came afterwards was Dexter, then Mr. Potts came, and he saw the brother comedown, step over the body aud waved his hand back toward the accused, .and said, “ Fan¬ ny, I told you not to do it.” Now when that remark was made the hall was full, there were parties there standing as he says within three feet of him, and not one of those persons is put upon the stand, or did they hear any such remark. She says she was up stairs ; was not down there when her brother was, but there is not a single witness, although he says that this hall was full and other parties came there, because I had him specify the names of the persons who first arrived there ; they came there where he was, and not a single one of those persons is put upon th « to corroborate him upon that point. Ai you are asked now—understand—j i asked to find that there is no dout ijk any point that is essential to coi ito this crime, that there is no doub bo her perfect sanity, there is no dout be the fact that she shot him, and tin he is no doubt about the fact that s i tended to shoot him before she di< he him. All these points, every eleme tt goes to make up this crime, you are ft is made out by the evidence be Dd reasonable doubt. I ask you, can ; i s that that fact is proven beyond a r.b Don’t it come to you in a quesinal shape. I didn’t pursue the exam itii of Mr. Pixley, to any great extei; y know his relations, his natural flic> But not a single man is put uj. li stand to corroborate him. I say i the duty of the prosecution to t t other witnesses upon the stand; tk kn who were there at the time, precis p * were there. Mr. Pixley was then itni and they had the opportunity to Ibm him and if there had been anyboi th( who could corroborate him he hoc had been put upon the stand, the had been anybody there who diffe 1 *i him upon that fact, he should lube put upon the stand. This person life not to be taken upon any unt-aid When they come in and demar bio they must show a clear right, witl it« shadow of doubt resting upon *b you demand blood you must notu&s conclusions, you must not imanet' 1 this may be so, or that may be so. utjl have got to find, beyond all re ontl doubt, every material fact before ou a take the life of a human being. So* say that his testimony upon that >oin'. entirely unsatisfactory. But wl: of t suppose he did hear that rema:. i you tell me what it proves ? whaft lishes in this case. Suppose at k brother did say this, what does i pro* Does it prove her guilty ? Window prove ? Talk about hanging l ,a * upon a loose remark made undersell® usances as lie testifies to, with persons ;lby him hearing nothing of the kind; lsiot worthy, such a point as that, of y iscussion at all. I ive alluded to the testimony of Cap- uWoglom, and to that of Sergeant ire, and I will not allude to their testi- >1 further. But I will allude to the t lony of Langan. This girl was in e inds of the police,—she was in their stly on a charge of murder. She is aged from the station house—for what irlse, heaven only knows, I don’t— aged from the Eastern District to Head laj'ers, I don’t know what it was for, cliiile on her way down, this miserable ei worse than a spy, attempts, accord- g o his testimony, to pump facts out of gil, unprotected, in the hands of the qmder a charge of murder, and tells ■ubiat he never said anything about it its, that he was present when the coro- •r’,inquest was had in court, took the •isier from the station house to the tu room, where the inquest was held, id ack again and yet he says nothing to e oroner and nothing to his superior tic: as to the conversation that he had el ,vith her. He don’t mention it to ty idy until a week or so ago. Would )U|aang a cat upon such testimony as at Would you give it the weight of a atir supposing it amounted to any- ir ? Take it, ivhat is it ? Birt would mjlelieve a word he said? I say this is«able officer is a disgrace to the force id ight to be turned off. I say, that any 'liman having in his custody a prisoner ad such circumstances as he had this ■isier, who attempts by trick to get utaents, and then comes into a court of st:3 and presents them for the purpose 1 higing, don’t deserve the name of man, a i.sgrace to the force and a disgrace to ie pmmunity. Think of it. He made ■> i|jte of it, but lie comes in here after lisjing lapse of time and undertakes to i run that stand—the miserable wretch iat aught to take advantage of a person i b unfortunate position at that time— ie iserable wretch goes upon the stand 9 and seeks to swear the blood of that un¬ fortunate prisoner away. Such a being as that is so utterly beneath the contempt of all honest men that it is not necessary to speak of him or allude to bim. He is be¬ neath contempt. To say that what he tes¬ tified to is evidence, would be an insult to common intelligence and common decency. I say that he is a miserable wretch and so is any other man, who under the circum¬ stances would attempt to manufacture or to get evidence in that way. But why wasn’t it told before ? It wasn’t considered important by him before, was it ? Oh, no. He didn’t tell it to the coroner, he didn’t iutimate to the coroner that she had made statements, although Captain Woglom was examined there as to the statements that she had made subsequently. They were considered important. But what he heard was not considered important. It was not considered a fact of sufficient moment by him to even mention to bis superior officer —nothing was said to his superior officer upon the subject. When I heard that testimony, and heard the fact that he hadn’t told the officer or the coroner— never had spoken of it until recently—it occurred to me what my associate said in his opening, and it was true ; I thought I could see the gleam, the glitter of some of the gold that had been paid to Charley Spencer in this case; I thought I could see the tools that were in the background looming up and creeping out in this miserable testi¬ mony of Officer Langan. I have attempted to describe to you as best I could the character of the murderer. But I ask you as you were asked by my asso¬ ciate in the opening, is the prisoner at the bar the material out of which murderers are made ? What is her history in brief ? She came to this country at the age of five years. And right here I wish to call your attention to a little fact and I wish you to bear it in mind. You will recollect that when she was upon the stand, undergoing that terrible ordeal—you of course could not have the slightest suspicion of that ordeal, taking a girl like her under a charge of this kind and putting her upon the stand before an audience, subjected to the scrutinizing examination of counsel— let me call your attention to the question that he asked her, if she had never had intercourse with a man where she boarded, by the name of Roberts. He was particu¬ lar as to how her room was located, what rooms they slept in, particular to inquire whether she knew that he always slept in that room or not, and the question were asked in such a way as to insinuate in the minds of the jury that she had had to do with other men. That was the object. I say that an insinuation of that kind, under the circumstances, unless the prosecution had evidence with which to back it up, to establish it, was a gross outrage upon all propriety in the trial of criminal causes. I say that this girl, placed in that unfortu¬ nate position, her life at stake, to try and poison the miuds of a jury by throwing out such an insinuation as that, without the power to back it up by evidence, is an outrage upon all right and upon all justice, and upon that I take my appeal to this jury, and will take their judgment upon it. In this connection I will call your atten¬ tion to another fact. I want your judg¬ ment upon that also. Ask yourselves when you go into the jury-room what you think of it, each man giving an expression of his opinion, and ask yourselves what you think of such conduct as that on the part of the prosecution, without attempt¬ ing to prove anything. You will recollect that before she was called I asked one of the witnesses a question in reference to her character. The prosecution didn’t seem to be satisfied with the form of the question. My question called for the opinion of the witness as to the character of the accused— her demeanor and conduct. The District Attorney asked me what the object of the question was. He seemed to put it in a shape as though he wanted to commit me to opening the door. I told him the object was to prove character; that we opened the door wide open, and he made the remark, “ And we will walk in.” Have they done it ? They have had their drag-net out and they have scoured the cities of New York and Brooklyn, and every place s' been, with iheir detectives and 1 hirelings, to see if they coidd r up something that they could i against the unfortunate prisoner c her relation with the deceased, an tl have been unable to put a single i upon the stand, although they hai o of their minions howling around he I they dared not face the music. 1 , opened the door; we went into the q “I Court-room, who has been a mirteritj angel to this unfortunate girl, see 123 been in jail, in taking her food , she i her companion. We have put him he stand. You have heard his story what he said of her. Does this :nnt to nothing? And we put Mr. i r on the stand ; he was her employer ; cvorked for him a. long time, about two js ; you have heard what he says about i-her conduct, her habit of industry, idispositiou. We put Mr. Thompson the stand, another employer. You v heard what he says in regard to her ciduct uniformly good, modest ; never «any indiscretion, or anything out of 3 'ay. Mr. Bartlett, who has lived in e ouse with her a loug time, commenc- % bout three years ago ; he was study- *iw then ; he was usually at home at gs, and she was there, always at work, ning home there at nights—industri- s rardworking. Does this seem like a ir that would commit murder? Do mink that this shows the training of a ueress ? Ob, no. You don’t think any el thing. If such a person as this could escuted upon such testimony as this, 31 would he no safety anywhere or for yne. B there was a fact that occurred in this 'e hat I regretted to see. It is evident at lere had been some influences outside, lo t mean to speak that in an improper us but I mean to say that there has eft spurring on, an urging forward, a esng ahead of this prosecution against is irl outside of the prosecution. We ve;een the indications of it all through e ye ; we have seen a great deal more ibutside. I wish the parties that had iei employed in this case had shown en elves in Court—had appeared here, lie; have not done it, they have kept in e lckground, but nevertheless they have mt he best they could; but they have it 1 en able to prove one word against is >or unfortunate being—not one. If erikad been any indiscretion on her irt ith other parties that they could weiown, it would have been paraded j re ith terrible effect; and if the fact 1 e sted, with the drag-net and their minions that they have had out, it would have been discovered, and it would have been here ; and it would have been a ter¬ rible fact ; it would have been a terrible thing. We went to our unfortunate cli¬ ent, and we both knew -what they were at¬ tempting to do; we asked her in the name of God to tell us the truth—did such a fact exist? was it possible for them to prove such a fact ? and if so tell us in time, so that ■we might be prepared as best we could to meet it. One reply—“It is not true; it is false; it is not time; never, so help me God, with any other man than her de¬ stroyer and her own husband.” We believed her; and when it was sug¬ gested by the counsel to send up to Con¬ necticut, where she had worked, and see if they were going to bring witnesses from there, and what w-e could ascertain—after the assertions that she had made, believ¬ ing as I did believe 4 her assertions, before her God, I said “No! I care not if they bring a regiment of miserable scamps, they cannot make a Jury believe them, because she can tell the story in a manner that will carry conviction to the mind of any honest man, and it was a base insinuation to throw- out that she had been guilty of this for the purpose of creating a prejudice to seek the blood of this child.” But the door was opened. Have they walked in to prove anything in regard to general character ? Not a word upon it ; not a word upon the subject at all—not one! Then, gentlemen, you come to the other branch of the case, and I shall be but a few minutes, because I feel somewhat ex¬ hausted. We take the testimony as to his pursuing her. You have heard her story as to when her ruin was accomplished. She was between fifteen aud sixteen years of age. She had turned fifteen years ; and oh, how much greater was the crime on the part of the deceased to accomplish her ruin under the circumstances under which it was accomplished; how much greater was his crime than it would have been for any outside person to have accom¬ plished the same ruin of her. She was there under his charge; went there a child; 124 he had other eh : ldren under his charge; she went there under him ; it was h : s d a‘y under the 1 >w to protect her; it was his duty by every princ pie of righ 1 to pro'ect her, watch over her, see that she was not wronged, and when he saw any indisc re- tion upon her put it would hive been his duty as a man to h ive warn d her of the danger. But instead of that, with this helpless child in his employ and under his care, fifteen years of age, he, a married man, upwards of forty years of age, with children her own age, he accomplished her ruin. And yon hear men say, well, why didn’t she leave ? Why did she submit ? Great God ! talk about a contest between a child and a man forty years of age! When he had accomplished her ruin und -r these circumstances, he held her in his grasp as within a vice, and she had to do his bidding. Having a stern father and mother, being of that age, fearing expo¬ sure and utter ruin, she could not get away from him. How did he pursue her ? Take the testimony of Newton. Newton says that his conduct was such towards her that he was called upon, deeming it to be his duty, to speak to him upon the subject, and he did speak to him upon the subject. We were not permitted to tell what he said to him, but he did speak to him upon the subject. Mrs. Lowne—you have heard her testimony about his calling there at the house during the day time, when the husband was absent. He called there fre¬ quently during the day, in the forenoon and in the afternoon, and would stay a considerable time. You heard the testi¬ mony of Weaver as to finding him there, as to seeing him go there. You have heard the testimony of Amos, who also spoke to Watson about his impropriety with the girls. You have heard the testimony of Maples, who saw them c >me out of the room, and you have heard the tes imonv of Winifred and Eliza. Jackson, two little girls that were examined here and em¬ ployed in the stine shop, about his bring¬ ing oysters and cakes and candies into the shop aud treating them ; something un¬ usual, but if it had been done for a ous and a p oper purpose it would bsen entirely excusable—it would shown a generous heart. B it it w; done for any su h purpose as that. There, gentlemen,is th? prisoner, (showing l.keness) was taken som< ago. There is the little girl Jackson you saw upon the stand, and there: position of a man,the employer, forty of age, inducing two of his little sho to go and have th hr likeness token¬ ing their hands upon his shoulder 1 position you wo ild think they were j and d mghters—two little shop girl) for the purpose of warding off sus: he sends one of them home to hi: family. Do you doubt the story < I girl ? Do you doubt that the d i accomplished her ruin ? Do yon ) that he pursued her as she testified ' I as Captain Woglom says she stated a day after day ; that she tried to ge id him, and could not get rid of him ? FI in heaven’s name, gentlemen, if she'M isfied with this intercourse, if tl ' agreeable to her, why is she here u] 11 stand in this great trial ? Didn’t to break it off ? Wasn’t she anxk tl he should desist his persecution o»hi But some will say why didn’t she OT How could she leave and where cod* go ? He held her in his grasp as on| in a vice ! She could not! Wh; 0 M she do ? And up at New Britain vaal had persecuted her to such an ext t th she became desperate, and accuseriru ■ his infidelity, he then begging for of his family, not to be exposed, ftij little mercy he had for others ! Iljwfl only the mercy for others teat k ash for himself, this trial would ha b*| avoided. If he had then ceased li cutions this trial would have been oidJ But be still renews bis persecutioij AW pledging himself before marriage ri ^ should lie the end, that he would lest her further, he renews his tions ; he follows her ; as some -tues* say she could not move anyvln'. 125 u. not go in nor she could not go out, ane was not at her heels, following her rid, following her about. V'll, gentl men, is there any doubt o: the effect that this horrible misfor- ahad upon her. You have seen her t, the little girl sitiing therp, but from 3 .nxiety of this trial not her natural Ic but you see her round, fresh, rosy e s. That was Fanny Hyde when she ,s er age, when she rvas innocent and a she was pure as she was when she r with Watson. LA at her now, a wreck, a wreck pro- cl by the persecutions that have been a’d upon her, followed from pillar to s the color of her cheeks gone, there 3 s reduced to a mere wreck, reduced i skeleton ; not willing to leave her e he had ruined her peace, destroyed r lind and destroyed her health, he still res her, and when she comes out that y i her then condition, he makes this irit because she would not yield to his sis—makes this indecent assault upon r. : “Vengeance is mine, saith the Al- gly, I will repay,”—and then it was treason, memory, judgment and all svi: of volition ceased, and without its icnce that feeble arm became the iithough sure avenger of the wrongs ttia l been heaped upon the head of □ f Hyde. L r i have the testimony as to her char- el? What more could we do ? What s re d< me that she deserves this great d lament, this great affliction? What ilihe done since she came to this n ry ? She attended Sunday School, s 1 tended night school; with her feeble i she added all that has been in her w to the wealth of this country. She ■ bored day and night, and when she slot laboring she was at school. That i lien her life. Her life has been an rrious one, all through. She has c'd with her hands and she has im- 1 her intellect all that she con'd ; : uglit moral instruction in the Sun- i'ffhool and at church; and I a«k you, a lias she done that this great affliction should be continued any longer upon this poor unfortunate victim. Isn’t it enough to make one’s heart bleed. Those who have children—thank God I have children —I know that you have children—some of you, little girls; oh, when you go home, tell those little girls the story of Fanny Hyde ; call them about you and tell them the story, tell them how she has behaved herself since she came to this country, up to the time that the deceased accomplished her ruin ; tell them how industrious she was, tell them about her going to Sunday School, tell them about the exhibitions in which she has taken part, tell them what her Sunday School teachers say of her, w hat her employers say of her, tell them the whole story and when you have told them that, they will have a good opinion of Fanny Hyde, they will say that she is a good girl, that she did right to go to Sun¬ day School and to night school, and to be industrious. Tell them that when she was fifteen years of age, when she was pure and innocent and virtuous, that she was employed by a man forty years of age, and tell them that that man, after five or six months, instead of protecting her, ac¬ complished her ruin, mined her ; and then go on and tell them her subsequent story, her trials and her misery, bet'er th; n I c; n tell it to you, and tell them then what oc¬ curred on this morning, and tell them that she shot him dead in his tracks ; ask them what should be done with her. Oh, gentle¬ men, think of the story of her life 1 think of what she has suffered, the intense agony that she has endured. What must have been her thoughts, what a world of confu¬ sion of thought must have rushed upon her mind when—a fact that is not disputed —she was sleeping side by side with the innocent girl, the daughter of this girl’s destroyer. What must have been her thoughts then, when she reflected on what she once was and what that pure girl was, and who it was that had brought about her ruin. What must have been her thoughts ? Why, that was enough to drive her to madness. Refer to the testimony of Mrs. Hyde, her mother-in-law 7 , who sits 12f> by her side to-day. She went there to be attended when she was suffering physically from causes produced by the ill treatment of her destroyer ; and when she thought that she had a brief respite, the summons comes for her to return—you have heard it described by Mrs. Hyde, how in the agony of her soul she exclaimed, ‘ ‘ I feel as though there was a curse hanging over me.” Yes, there was a curse, it was the curse of her destroyer, it was hanging over her, it will follow her to the grave, but God, in his mercy, I trust; will not hold her accountable. See her wild look, as de¬ scribed by Mr. Potts. What was it upon her mind ; what was it that was causing this unnatural look ; what was it that was causing this unnatural expression of the eye and color of the face ; what was it that was preying upon the mind of this girl this morning; what was it ? What was she thinking about when she sat at the stove there ? What do you think was rush¬ ing through her mind ? Was that the act of a person coolly and deliberately contem¬ plating murder ? Would they give vent to their feelings in that way, in contem¬ plating murder for revenge ? Oh, no. She exclaims, “ Oh, I wish I was dead.’’ Had God, in His mercy, taken her before she met her destroyer, gentle memories would have clustered about her grave. Her life is blighted, she is here a wreck, but little left. You are to deal with the wreck—you are to say whether tire remainder of it is to be destroyed, or you will give an oppor¬ tunity for her to repair, so far as in her power, this great misfortune that has be¬ fallen her. You have heard the testimony of Dr. Byrne, who stands high in his profession, whose character is above reproach, who has had great experience in the diseases with which the prisoner was afflicted ; he tells you the effect of that disease upon the mind, and he tells you, upon the facts as told to him in this case, and I leave it to you to say whether he fairly understood them or not, that she was not responsible when she committed the act, she could not be. Is his testimony worth nothing ? Upon a question of life or death will i say that he is entitled to no weight at. that you will throw it aside as unworth 4 consideration, when if the testimon j worthy of consideration and to be belie l then this girl is entirely irrespons:: and was entirely irresponsible at the 1 1 she committed that act? Upon what the i will you say that his testimony is not t * regarded ? A man who has made it ii business to study the effect of just ii condition upon the mind comes upon < stand ; a man of his standing and chi!is ter, and tells you upon the solemnit >: an oath that he does not believe she v t responsible being at the time that it committed this act. Then I place i* the stand a man who has had a larges perience in another specialty, that is r ticularly the diseases of the mind and it brain ; ten years at the head of the Bleu iugdale asylum, a year at the heara another asylum on Blackwell’s Island, ic since that time has been pursuing the s Ij and the investigation of these diseia He has made it a specialty for a {»i many year's, stands high in his profess n, stands high as a citizen—character a ft reproach-—he comes and hears the Id mony. He hears the testimony himli as it comes from the lips of the witne ■*, and he is asked his opinion. What « he say ? He is asked a question—1 i‘ asked to state a condition in whicl be would expect to find the developmei ol this form of insanity. He states it: I should suppose that a person exhibit;« predisposition to insanity, those whose genl health is marred by any cause, those whin naturally nervous and excitable, those hi have been subjected to airy great trial of eii feelings in anyway, to cause them to < ell much upon the subject, to regret it, and 1* awake nights and dream ol it, and then UipP 1 plication of a great and sudden exeitin m some strong emotion—I should suppose sti» person, under such circumstances, would* very likely to lose their reason. Question. And add to that at the time oftto exciting cause painful dysmenorrhoea. would greatly increase the probability o>d A. I think it would. Q. You have heard some of the testiino hi the case, and from what yon have heard id the examination you made, do you thiutw prisoner in this case answers the deseripud A. Very fully. 127 :ow, doctor, from the evidence you have d 1 this case and the examination you have e.aking all into consideration, the whole or'.of the case, what in your opinion do you di condition of her mind was at the pre- Li e of this homicide ? A. I have no doubt B si; was insane. i. responsib e ? A. Irresponsible. I be- ■ e act was from the result of a sudden ill', the occasion of which she did not fore- ad which she was not able to restrain; I jvshe had no knowledge of w r hat she was 2; the time the shock occurred. ’St;. iu< ’ll is the testimony. Coming from a source as this, and in the face of stimony, sworn by these witnesses iderstand the question, and in the all the authorities, in face of all ttimonyin this ease, you are asked ia;in your souls that the prisoner at tr has been guilty of the crime of ih. I will not insult your intelli- .cflor an instant by contemplating such I know that it cannot be; that a case as this there can be but one cl lion arrived at. The prosecution ’fxpect a conviction in this case. I ’tielieve that they have the faintest u convicting this girl; but they do 'e hat there may be a disagreement, t le may have to go back to her cell mand there remain at the pleasure of pisecntion. Oh! gentlemen, I trust t lat will not be brought about. I it hat her sufferings will end so far as 1 large is concerned; that her suffer- 1 11 end with the ending of this trial, u; and believe that she will be allowed e m to her family, and repair as far bean the great misfortune that has be- 3 iher. Oh! don’t permit the hand of ridon to oppress her any longer; lift 0 her, take it from her. In the ad- lifation of the law by man how often 13 rules of right perverted. How n s it that the accused should be the ocit, and how often is it that the ir are called upon to endure the pun- n t due to others. This poor thing en now in jail since the 26th of y; she has been confined in a felon’s Oh! gentlemen, she has suffered a ad deaths in feeling. The punish- ’ould be but slight that would follow a verdict of guilty in this case as for as any physical endurance is concerned. She has suffered all the pangs that it is possible for the mind to suffer now. Gentlemen, I have but a few more words to say to you. But I must return you my thanks before I resume my seat for your kind indulgence in listening to me so long in this case. I can assure you that I feel deeply in this case. I feel from the bottom of my soul that this girl has been guilty of no crime either by the laws of God or man. I feel that she sits here to-day as innocent of any crime or any intent to commit crime as any man in that jury box; and feeling as I have felt in this case, and seeing her helpless condition, I have felt it my duty to give my whole time and my whole attention to the defense of this case, and I have been much assisted, ably assisted, by those who have helped me in the case; and I can assure you, gen¬ tlemen, that what we have done has been done with the desire to protect this girl, and not for money; that we are working without fees; we are not lawyers talking with retainers in our pockets. But were this to take ten times as long as it h«s we would never abandon that girl, but stick to her until the jury would say by their verdict that she might go free. I believe her to be innocent; I believe that she has committed no act that renders her account¬ able by any law of God or man. I don’t care what view of the case you may take ; take the view of the prosecution. You have got to take her story us to the occur¬ rence. Take her view of it; take the tes¬ timony, and she stands acquitted. But, I ask you, if there was no other testimony in this case, no medical authorities referred to, no judicial authorities referred to, if I simply called your attention to the testi¬ mony of Dr. Byrne and Dr. Correy, would you not acquit her? “Have yon heard. Dr. Correy, the evidence in this case? what is your opinion as to the condition of her mind at the time of this hom¬ icide?” And he says under oath: “I believe before my God that she was irresponsible.” 128 Are you going to hang her after such testimony as that ? Will you say that there is no doubt in this ease—will you ■say that this is clear, plain, free of doubt. Oh, no. You cannot do it and you will not do it. Not g doubt ? why ! the de¬ fense is perfect. There cannot be any question as to what the verdict must be upon such evidence as this. Physicians giving their opinions under the sanction of an oath, that they believe that she was utterly irresponsible, and giving you the reasons why she was irresponsible at the time of the commission of that act—oh, under such circumstances I know that it will be your pleasure to hasten to set her at liberty, after the case shall have been committed to your charge. If I have said anything in this case that seemed to you wrong, excuse it, ascribe it to my interest and feeling in the case. I have done the best I could. I know that I have manifested much feeling, but it is the feeling of my heart. I have made some criticisms in reference to the con¬ duct of the case upon the pirt of the prosecution, as to those criticisms 1 say now I adhere to every one of them, and upon them I am ready and willing to take the j ldgment of this jury. I have seen a good many things in this case since it has commenced that I would rather not have seen, and I have heard a great many things in this case that I would much have pre¬ ferred not to have heard. I heard a re¬ mark, when Mrs. Meagher, for whom this unfortunate prisoner worked and who was in the habit of visiting her house, playing with the children—fond of children she says—when she was upon the stand and I had asked her in regard to her character, you heard what she said. She spoke as all the witnesses have spoken in regard to her character, she gave her a good character, “she was a good girl, industrious girl, fond of children.” I heard the question suggested to the District Attorney, from the brother of the deceased—“Ask her why she left.” He asked the question, you heard the answer. Taking that fact and the miserable detective, and one or two of such insignificant things as f is all the result that has been produt I the employment of outside couns] the employment of private detectivjj all the machinery that could be brg to bear, and the lavish expenditu j money. You have seen it creep I these words. I regretted to see thi u thought it would have been much J for him to have remained away. I« think it is good taste that he sat j side the District Attorney. I didn’t i it looked well that he should come n from Connecticut here to seek till blood of this girl, and I felt like mi to him that this was not his place. H should he come here, why should hew here to urge on this prosecution, t<| this girl’s life blood, to send her 'I ignominious death upon the sea 1< That is what he meant. That sugg i meant blood, it meant nothing elsn that has been the meaning of thes> >i side parties from the start. It has e vengeance. But they cannot tak('e geance through this jury, thauk to There is a barrier that stands be« their desires, justice and right, a t right and justice will here bevindical. There are a great many things tha u occurred in this case that I have see have seen much more than you havt et connected with this case, and I knowm more than you know as to the effort! have been made to drag this girl to ; i nominous death upon the scaffold, it cannot be done. Yonder brothei m come, the whole crowd may com t whole gang of paid hirelings tba n been employed may come, the Sp« may come, and his minions may con b here sits a barrier between their din justice and right; and you will v them, “no; by no power shall yo bs the blood of that innocent girl.” W1 should these outside parties, why on men come a hundred miles voluntaiy seek the blood of this unfortunat gr Oh ! gentlemen, it is too much, it t< much ; it is too much. Can you bine for having feeling in this case ? 0, ■ 129 a We have a feeling inspired of eter- itice. How much more is this poor .1 of man’s cruel wrong to suffer. Is c enough? Is it not enough that ove her mad, and caused her to ex- rin the agony of her soul, “I am a upon a wheel of fire, that mine own 3 o scald like molten lead,” and must cier now come, with his paid minions i back ground, and seek to drag this \rembling victim to an awful and ig~ bus death upon the scaffold ? Is rfc satisfied with the ruin already i it ? Are you not prepared to ex- r spare her, Watson, spare her, for sie of the name you bear. Enough i name has she suffered already. y the love of God and for the sake of His ii, spare her broken life; don’t seek to p upon the fallen and undone. She may meet them no more in this life, they may forget her mortal agonies in the busy throng of the world, but there comes a day when he who murdered her peace and they who seek to murder her life will meet their victim before the Great Judge, in the court above the sun; where misfortune is not a crime, and where earthly distinctions fade away; where the poor are rich and. the merciful are blest; where the weak are strong and the oppressor’s rod is broken, and in that awful presence they will be called to answer why, at their hands, Fanny Hyde was scourged to madness and to death. ” Ob, gentlemen, I beg of you as you love your families, as you love your children, by your hope of salvation hereafter, by your expectation of mercy, I ask you to let this prisoner go free, let her return to her home. Oh, lift the great load that now oppresses her ; say to her, you are in¬ nocent, God bless you, God bless you, Fanny Hyde. 130 SUMMING UP OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY. Mr. BRITTON said : If it please the Court, and you, gentlemen of the jury. It affords me great pleasure to be able to congratulate you ou this bright and sunny morning, that we are all about to arrive at the conclusion of this trial,—a tidal in more than one respect extraordinary in its character, extraordinary in the nature of the defense, under the circumstances interposed, and quite as extraordinary in the more peculiar features of the manage¬ ment of the case by the defense. And, in another particular, I might add, unusually extraordinary. This trial has continued for live long days. During that period no one can say that this juiy have not given this case all the attention, all the candor, and all the care in its consideration which could possibly be given to any case, more or less important. And what¬ ever verdict may ultimately be rendered, it will become no man to say that there was any want of attention, care or consid¬ eration on the part of this jury. Before proceeding to a discussion of what I deem to be the merits of this case especially in controversy, tin re are some things which have occurred during the trial, collateral to such merits, which, it seems to me, re¬ quire some passing nctiee from me. It has been considered proper, on the part of the counsel for the defense, to make some criticisms on the conduct of the case by the District Attorney, and he has thought proper to make these criticisms in a manner and in a style which may be, under the circumstances, satisfactory to him. It has been charged that the Dis¬ trict Attorney has exhibited an improper and undue zeal in the prosecution of the case. It has been charged that the Dis¬ trict Attorney has quarrelled with the court. Well, gentlemen, the time has not yet arrived in the County of Kings when the present District Attorney of this county feels it incumbent upon him to defend himself against such charges from the officer w T ho preceded him. It is have caused a smile upon the counter :« of some of the gentlemen in this m room, who remember his action d nj his nine years of official career, to aa heard him arraign me on charges like t se. But, gentlemen, if it were true that I a* guilty of acts that make me amenab u these charges, I certainly was not f Ity of them without distinguished precec is. The counsel himself, when he read t< 01 the opening of the District Attorn of Washington City, in order to shov os what District Attorneys might do, »■ nished you a comment on that remarl nd I submit to you when you heard ul opening of that District Attorney .a read to you, whether it occurred tc on to contrast that opening with the opmg made by the District Attorney in this se. While it may have been—probably 1 — much more able, perhaps it occurrt tc you that it breathed a spirit which on did not discover in the opening re. But why, why go to Washington • a precedent ? Here in our own neig or hood a precedent may be found, anone not remote. Gentlemen, a case of homicide or al murder was pending before a distiiigined judge—a judge whose character and po¬ tation for judicial ability, high lionouid integrity is surpassed by none io liii State, a judge whom some of you, g tle- men, may perhaps personally know, bl case was,—as all criminal cases are,— ps- euted by a District Att omey. At the osf of that case the jury did not agree in hit verdict. That trial was pressed wi » zeal compared to which the fires oltlu zeal in this would pale into insignifioioa But in that the court and the U riel Attorney differed some as to the 1;. ** sometimes happens, and as has hapjoel on this trial. After the trial, applied^ was made in that case, as is usual imoli cases, for the bailing of the prison- 1 131 n, state to you what occurred, or t') controversy between the District ni and the judge, before whom such chon was made, was. Suffice it for o ay that, as a result of these pro- n i, that District Attorney, who has aid me the precedent to which I r prred, thought proper to address a nication through the public prints, 1 will read to you : District Attorney’s Office, King’s County, Brooklyn, February 12, 1870. ■ iver Thieves, Cut-’hroats and Murderers Nt York and Brooklyn : llm I have the honor to acknowledge co it of the numerous communications tljaddressed to me, by the members of pc/erful fraternity in reference to Edward . ] q., and in answer thereto respectfully a iu that that gentleman has been admit- ) fc’l. The delay in informing you of the ciumstance was caused entirely by my an: of the fact before the official announce- th morning. But you, whose sources of in¬ fill are so much better than mine, that you awe of the result in Cherry street two days w: readily and kindly excuse the one iio, on my part, and in view of the satis¬ fy inclusion will probably be good enough ■eg the intentions so warmly expressed to If the communications already referred ee: it all the more necessary to call your Iio; to this subject, as the immunity here- i jcasionally enjoyed by you in your avthy business has been recently in- rill such an extent as to render murder oo yn entirely safe hereafter, and no risk ;v( attaches to the felonious taking of n e. Having accomplished all that you \ id having strong and reliable assur- o; inflection hereafter, in whatever you do - ; ou will at once perceive, Messrs. River ref Cut-throats and Murderers, that no uti necessity at present exists for the de- do of my insignificant life. And this : si may I be permitted to indulge in the th you will simply permit me to live a ti 3 longer, at least until I again offend ttepting to bring any of your distin- ednembers to justice? Besides, gentle- as our business is done out of court and in ourt, we will not necessarily conflict lte, and as your business is done out of byre mine begins in court, we will not sa ^y quarrel as before, av he honor to subscribe myself, S D. Morris. >w gentlemen, accompanying this let- fei,certain declarations made by that nc Attorney who arraigns me here, or tree days after the communication I have here mentioned, referring to the death of D. S. Yoorhees, who was shot by one Chambers in cold blood in South Brooklyn. With reference to that occur¬ rence the District Attorney said : Does any one believe that if Edward Perry had met with his deserts—if he had been promptly convicted and sentenced, this would have occurred? No, sir. I believe it is the result of the drunken jubilee which followed Judge Gilbert’s decision to admit Perry to bail. The thieves and murderers have become abso¬ lutely maddened by their successes. Well, gentlemen, it is a peculiar com¬ ment to make on that—that when this Chambers was tried for this last-mentioned offense, and that man came into this court¬ room prosecuted by this same District Attorney for a murder, which he says was committed because Perry was held to bail, that it did not take long for the jury to decide, with the acquiescence of the Dis¬ trict Attorney, that that man was insane ; and he was sent to the Lunatic Asylum. This was one of the cases cited by the learned counsel on the other side yester¬ day, if I remember rightly. During this controversy in regard to bail in that case, tried by such a court, and where the jury impanneled by such a Court had disagreed, certain affidavits were made, and among them an affidavit of the distinguished Dis¬ trict Attorney, wherein he detailed certain private conversations which he alleged had occurred between him and the Judge who heard the case and presided on the trial. And when his Honor, Judge Gilbert, came to write an opinion on this question of holding to bail, he makes use of this lan¬ guage reported in this Book of Reports : In regard to the statements contained in the affidavit of S. D. Morris relative to what oc¬ curred between the presiding justice and him¬ self immediately after the first trial, I forbear to comment. This statement may be fitly re¬ served for investigation elsewhere. Now, gentlemen, I take it, that if the present District Attorney had done the things which I have detailed to you here, and the counsel who had arraigned him before you in this trial, had been the indi¬ vidual defending Edward Perry on this occasion, you would have heard his clarion voice throughout this court-house and into 132 the street in comments upon the “zeal,” the “improper ardor,” and the “improper interference ” on the part of the District Attorney, outside of his legi'imate duties in the case ; and you -would have heard him denounce the impropriety of any Dis¬ trict Attorney undertaking before the pub¬ lic to drag through the mire of such a letter, and through the mire he himself created, such a judge as rendered that de¬ cision, Judge Jasper W. Gilbert, to whom I have refern d. But, geutlemen, it is unusual for coun¬ sel in the trial of a case of this importance —and I beg your pardon and the pardon of the Court for referring to this thing to the extent I have, I feel impelled to do it from what I considered an unwarrantable and gross attack in language and manner made upon me by counsel on the other side—it is unseemly that counsel should be wrangling personally through a trial of this nature over the remains of a man lying low in his grave by the hand of vio¬ lence, and on the trial of a woman who is charged with his deliberate murder. But, gentlemen, no remarks that have been made shall swerve me from what I deem to be my just duty in the case. I had intend¬ ed, as I think it was due to you and my¬ self, to refer to one circumstance which has occurred in this trial, on my behalf, in my summing up, which I should have done whether or not any of these remarks had been made, and which I shall not be de¬ terred from doing by what has been said on this occasion. Your attention has been called to the fact that I asked a question of this prisoner while on the stand as to her conduct while in New Britain, Conn. ; and that I did not follow it up with any testimony tending to show that the ques¬ tion which I asked her was pertinent to any evidence subsequently to be intro¬ duced. Now, gentlemen, it was not neces¬ sary, in one sense, to make a criticism upon that by offensive imputations upon motives. It was fair and just, if the counsel thought proper, to make a criticism upon that cir¬ cumstance to this jury ; and it was equally fair and just that I, as I intended to do, should give the prisoner here her jm 1 in that regard. When I asked the « tion I believed I had testimony i J case which I should introduce, tend contradict the evidence for whicl j would be the foundation. Believing M I asked the question. The test:« through some delay in some respeih not arrived—it was from abroad—so g did not know it in its length and bi 11 After this question had been aske a on the adjournment, when I had oj:j| nity to inquire fully into the partial ■$ that evidence, I found that, in my o] it in justice to all parties concerne -t prison ei as well as the people—tl t testimony was not such as I ought i troduce. It was true there was a f i< tion to a certain extent; but I ft! tl this prisoner, under the circumstai s this case, ought not to be arraigned t prosecuting officer of this county f a acts outside of those developed in e m tion with this trial legitimately, a t offense charged upon her, unless tl e' dence was clear, conclusive and overek ing. Feeling in that way, I introdnd evidence on the subject. Now, gentlemen, this prisoner is eitk and I say it cheerfully, to all the ad^ tl of that fact. She is to be tried bef< jj and before this Court on the tesjo relating to this case ; and if it wen-os ble—which, I believe, it cannot btii could by any possibility have inflm your minds adversely to her, I beg jl to divest your minds of it at once! just to her. But, gentlemen, that b* said in justice to this prisoner. il| been charged on me by the couidf the other s de, that in asking this qW I was seeking to take an unfair adw of this woman. Is there a man) 1 senses—is there a man who knows 'on| to put two ideas together and draw cfl elusion from them who does not knf ti an act of that- kind not followed up»iu prejudice the case of the people id B the case of the prisoner? Doesrv® suppose, that I was not aware whel a not introduce this evidence for tliete** X3-3 iave stated, that if it -were not fol- xnp by such evidence that it would bject of comment to this jury, and , ley would justly feel tint it was a jin which ought not to prejudice the oil' ? Such a proposition is unworthy : nn who charged it. Now, gentlemen, l av.said all I propose to say to you, so a . am concerned, connected with my ndfet of this case. jnot content with charging upon the 1 1 Attorney improper motives and n r conduct in the prosecution of the , n could not keep from abasing and l yig the afflicted and innocent family, > is lost irs head. The only brother, 10 lilt that lie had some interest in the lsdof the death of a brother whom he othougbt proper to come into this ir! room, and at my request to seat :sf by my side, in order that I might, net be, ask him occasional questions re- n. to the facts as they were developed tl trial. Is not that all, gentlemen ? as lything else done by him as the sub¬ 's- ' criticism before this Court ? The n 1 upon that tells you that this family ■ ‘lifter blood,” and he reiterates it iu m and manner calculated to impress i th the inhumanity and brutality of is dieted family. Gentlemen, suppose your case. Suppose you lived here -3: oklyn and had an only and dearly be- vet brother, whom you believed—what- < j r tilers might think—was the soul of me of kindness, affection, and gentle- ■s nd suddenly the anouncement comes 1 y—you being a hundred miles distant th your brother had been shot down, tl prime of life, and in the strength of ‘iiiod ; and, connected with that, there m- news to you, through the public ' in, that, associated with the cause of is < ath, was the charge of a great and 'ue wrong — a wrong which, if true, -lid 1 to blast the reputation of your fo‘ sr, tended to blast- the reputation of is mily—of the afflicted wife and five incut children—tended to blast your wn iput-ation ; and von hastened to the lenlof misfortune to ascertain the facts, and on arriving there you would inquire as to what were those facts, you would in¬ quire, whether you had mistaken the char¬ acter of this brother, and you would en¬ deavor to inquire whether he had been struck down murderously, iu cold blood, or whether he had done something or other to merit that fate. Well, gentlemen, on making these inquiries you still feel, as this brother fepls, that this charge is unfounded. And suppose that intelligence be conveyed to his afflicted wife, and it is a source of consolation to her in her widow¬ hood and distress, and she, knowing him to have been a kind and loving husband, still believed him to be a noble specimen of a man, where is the hand, whatever the fact might be, that would tear down that fabric or confidence ? Well, the person alleged to have committed this offence is to be tried. Are you now to lose all interest in the case ? You know that on that trial your brother’s reputation is to be assailed. You believe him to be innocent. Are you to lie supinely by, stay at your place of residence, and let the matter rest there ? and if you do take sufficient in¬ terest in the matter to be present at the trial of the case, and you are invited by the District Attorney, who is practically here, so far as the case requires it, to de¬ fend the reputation of the deceased, and you happen to suggest a question, wliat would you think, then, among strangers, there where your brother has been mur¬ dered, where you have no friends to stand by or sympathize with yon, to be called a “bloodhound,” and to be told that you are “after blood,” that you are hounding this “ girl ”—as she is called—to her death ? Gentlemen, this is a specimen of the fairness, of the honor, the candor, with which this trial is conducted by the coun¬ sel for the defense. But that is not all. We are told in the next breath that this “family”—not confined to the brother— that this family all the time since the death have been hounding this prisoner, trying to drive her on to death and the gallows. Who are this family ? That widow who came on this stand is the mother of that 134 family ; that widow who, from no fault of her own, of all the parties before the Court the only innocent one, so far as this testi¬ mony develops, is the head of that family; and in her affliction, in her bereavement, innocent as she is, charged with no offence, -he is called a bloodhound by a counsel standing in defense of a woman who is con¬ ceded to be guilty of one heinous offense, and is told that she lias hounded this prisoner for weeks and months, from the time of this homicide to this trial. Who else constitute this family? Five children ; one of them an innocent girl of fifteen or sixteen years of age, and from that down to a mere infant. This is the family that is “ hounding this innocent person to her death!” Gentlemen, it is not necessary for me to say to you that there is not one word of evidence in this case tending in the remotest degree to indicate such a state of facts. And more, gentlemen, there is not one word of truth in the asser¬ tion. I bear witness here to-day. and I do it cheerfully, on my honor as a man, on my professional honor and on my official honor, that I never knew a family, afflicted as this family has been, including the brother, who have conducted themselves, so far as I have been able to see, with such propriety and such peculiar delicacy. This brother has shown no disposition in any¬ thing or everything he has ever said to me in this case which indicated that he had any feeling of hostility or reveDge for this prisoner. He has felt a solicitude for his brother’s reputation, and what brother would not? Beyond that no feeling has been exhibited; and I regretted exceed¬ ingly to hear, in the opening by that coun¬ sel, who is the soul of honor, who would not make a statement in this Court which he did not believe to be true, hardly to save his own life—to hear him make the charge. Bat I knew his opinion came from others; I knew it must necessarily come from others, and that he was not responsible for it. Now, gentlemen, let me state it in another way to you, and see what you think of this: Suppose I should c< before the jury, without evidenc m> pendent of the testimony in the my own responsibility, with nothini «(e, the jury to warrant it, nothing be eft jury to indicate it, nothing before mil justify such a remark, and say this tm “ Gentlemen, here is a woman wt eu) in life, voluntarily entered into 'hr tation with a man much her 8( or i years. She knew he had a wife 1 hi children. Knew that he was a an high reputation, that he loved his mo was a father to his children and hu band to his wife that they were pi .d« Nevertheless, with that knowledge b mind, conscious of this relation f tl party wdth his family, she exe> i b wiles through her feminine infhi ce that the first time in all his life re w allured away from those duties v oh I owed to that family; and that sh< act: ued by these wiles that she hadrrc' over him, and, for a year or a yes ami half, thus to seduce him from hi'ami ties; that while continuing this int mu she gets married, and yet still cont ae*! beguile him from his duty by mti charms than those of his home, til. length, tired of him, she cloyed f ft man, so much her senior. She As shake him off; but he had become acfe to her, improperly attached to h all terously attached to her, if you ilea and he would not leave at her idin she then prepares herself with put and shoots him. Now suppose u b lieve that this brother don’t beli i til don’t believe any of it except tl shoo ing; this wife don’t believe it—shealiw her husband was as pure as an;nan the time he met his death. Bu asm even that state of facts, assume : >t * the belief of these parties, are 1 \v, ta cause they interfered to the extit J» have seen on this trial—one to a* ness and the other to suggest a qv tion to be told they are “ after blood ” ndl “houndiug an innocent creature! 8 you have been told of extra co^eU Charley Spencer, of the gold tit lb 135 v as been paid to him to conduct this a Now, gentlemen, I ask you in all mon candor, as fair, honorable men, iner that was a statement to make in klourt? Are you here to try this case >o the evidence, or are you here to try c slanderous statements of counsel? uuld not have been a very heinous fete if this family had employ d asso¬ rt counsel. The gentleman who happens lid the office of District Attorney is >r aratively fresh in the office, having eefcly been elected, and they, knowing s i perience is comparatively limited in unal prosecutions, might naturally feel a tie might desire the aid of counsel of puence. Such cases are not unusual, re existed in most of the trials to which utel alluded yesterday. Scarcely a case te importance of this has been tried itbut two or more counsel on each side, 1 le more might it be excused in con- le tion of the four distinguished coun- 10 appear in this case for the defense, at e will dispel this illusion. There is \j of meeting this allegation except r cinter allegation. It has no proof in ie ,se, and therefore no proof can be or tit. to meet it; but let me assure you, utmeu, that this structure has been art without a particle of foundation, f; as I know and am informed by the mi;, and every one connected with it, r. pencer was never retained by them tis case, and has never been paid a >ilafor services. Mr. Spencer has not, 1 in knowledge, had anything to do with us ,se from the hour it came into the ic of the public officer of this county 1 th moment of his addressing you here., -1c look at all this. What do you i ubf this manner of conducting a case? halo you think of this way of seeking > iiuence a jury against an innocent mi ? What do you think of this way liking a jury believe this girl is ho ided to her death?” Might not this mi] say with far more justice that this ian iviog been shot, the counsel, under m iipiration of this prisoner, seeks to mmi his memory in the cold grave, and not content with that to blast the reputa tion and character of the children whom he has left behind him? But, gentlemen, it has been charged upon me that I have feeling in the case. Why, of course, I have; I have never said to this Court nor to this jury that I had not feeling. What! a District Attorney, a member of an honorable profession, have no feeling in a case like this? I said to this jury in the opening that I had no feeling arising from professional pride. That is what I said to this jury. I said that on such a trial as this it would be de¬ grading to a public officer to indulge in any feeling of professional pride. That is what I said to this jury. But that was not discarding all feeling. And whatever feeling I had when I came into this case has since been increased; and it exists now, gentlemen, and it is a feeling high above this petty, contemptible feeling that has been referred to, a feeling that as the result of this trial justice may be done to the people, and that justice may be done to this prisoner; and a feeling grown out of the fact that this defense is con¬ ducted upon an hypothesis which, if suc¬ cessful, would strike at the foundation of human society, and overturn the results of the experience of ages. It will not be my province here to defend the memory of the deceased. Incidentally, of course, his character arises in the progress of the trial. It is not my duty to defend his memory. He is in his grave. Whatever his faults may have been, whatever errors he may have committed, whatever wrongs he has perpetrated, if any—all are now expiated in the forfeiture of his life. And we are here to see whether the author of his death is to expiate her errors and this offense as well. Now, gen demen, it was the duty of the prosecution in the first instance to prove to you the circumstances which led to the offence charged in this indictment, and which constituted that offense. It was necessary only for the prosecution to prove the circumstances which under the statute constituted this offense, viz,: that the 136 man was killed, that it was done with a premeditated design to kill without justi¬ fication. The law presumes that where a person comes to his death by a dead¬ ly weapon in the hands of another, that that other intended the conse¬ quences of the use of that weapon, and when the killing with a deadly weapon was proved the| offense was substantially made out, because the law presumes the balance. It was then competent, as has been done by the defense, to seek to show the facts upon which they base their claim of exoneration for this act. They have come before you and exhausted most of the week in showing you the facts upon which they rely. The defense first inter¬ posed and relied upon is the defense of in¬ sanity. Well, it was not necessary for the counsel for the defense to have expended a month in collecting and two hours in reading to you extracts from various medi¬ cal works proving there was such a thing as insanity. It was not necessary for him to have digested from nearly all the medical works within reach, to prove that there was such a kind of insanity as sworn to here. If the counsel supposes it is neces¬ sary to convince anybody of that at this late day, he has indulged in an enterprise which has not had its parallel since the celebrated exploit, wherein Don Quixote and Sancho Panza made their assault on the windmill. I don’t think any intelli¬ gent man in these later days will dispute the proposition of law he lays down in that respect. But, considering that insanity may exist, considering there is such a dis¬ ease, that it may break out after it has continued for a long period of time latent, being brought into a sudden paroxysm by a sudden shock, then the threshold of the defense is only reached, the counsel sup¬ poses that when he has performed that his case is established, that when he has only entered the threshold of the work, that the fortress is stormed. Now but a few words will dispose of that question. It is conceded by everybody that there is such a disease as insanity. It is not denied that there is such a phase of that disease as has been testifieo d the witnesses on the stand and as hr» road to you from the books, which shi more par* icularly refer to in a few me a| The ques ion here is ; is this s b case ? That is all. That fact is sougl ol established by two classes of testi w The first is from the testimony of (er Well now, who are experts ? lie: doubt most of you gentlemen und .tu what is meant by experts. In bri th is a mode of proof that has crept iut un prudence, growing out of the net ah of the case. Where there is any icci calling leaning to special info aln| which men who compose juries, si ti people at large are not supposed tuef miliar with, it is held proper to c pc sons who are thus peculiarly info edi are supposed to be from their sitm and calling upon such particular s jeei Sometimes experts are called to , Igu< handwriting, sometimes mechanic so* times physicians, and men in the irits vocations of society. Now the tn phu of that is this—and in no instan' th* am aware of, except in these p icub cases of insanity, has that rule 1 a a parted from—that the questions eon fined to general operations elicit g gfl eral information, questions gene lj » lating to the particular thing t< be ■ quired of, and it is left to the ji *1* and exclusively to apply those ;eieq principles and opinions to the fac of th case. When the courts in any stsu departed from that rule I submit t y ca* mitted a grave error. It has been rough in by degrees, owing perhaps tc he i| portance of these trials,that it ha:omul be admitted sometimes that a ,yacH who has sat during a trial aud D he«| the evidence is called as an expt M press an opinion as to whether mot i» facts as applied to these particur establish the condition of in sum' in *l defendant. But, nevertheless, iriill^ mains a question for the j lry tdecMg and I submit to you that whate-r v"> there may be to the opinions of ‘ on these abstract questions, ha« I 137 it to apply the question to the partic- ■ cts in the case, he is no more com- n to do so, after having stated to you 3 neral principles, than you are. ; he as competent, because we all what men in pursuit of a single idea, i la pursuit of a single principle all r lives become enthusiasts on that 3 Im. They are always radical; they tj carry it farther than the common se f the community will justify. They ujiafe judges of such questions when l cne to apply them to specific acts, so what are the facts in this case ? Crrey, an eminent gentleman in his ife ion, is called upon the stand, and I ai to you it was a most extraordinary ibion, and it only proves to you how mtligent and scientific gentleman may ailed away by the impulse of a single , id by his sympathies with the sub- t • that idea. It is true that Dr. rre testifies here, on this stand, that befeved on the facts in the case that 5 (fendant was insane. He testified tide that, independent of the testimony theiccused, throwing her testimony all tl other testimony in the case satis- Iri she was insane. He went further; sai he had made a personal examina- ' (j the defendant, and he found no ores of insanity wheD such examina- ■ ? ere made, so that his judgment n influenced by that. He said to tit he did not believe there was any inanity as this ; that a person could in all his life to a certain period, then me or a few moments, and then sane neottely and always afterwards, and l w not the doctrine he had substan- •1, or was it the doctrine of the books, mi that this insanity was a disease of br:r, which is the organ of the mind, th ugh which this mind indicates it- tc he surrounding world. Like all er jseases which grow by time, like otlr diseases having once set in, it k ti e to remove it; there was no dif- nct n that regard between a disease of hri i and a disease of any other por- 1 of he system. That conceded, gen¬ tlemen, what else did the Doctor say ? I asked him— “Doctor—Can you state a single fact or a single act of the defendant prior to this shoot¬ ing which indicated that she was insane?” “No.” Not any act of the prisoner which indi¬ cated she was insane ! “Can you state any act after the killing which indicated she was insane?” “No, ex¬ cept that she delivered herself up.” Well, Doctor, do not persons deliver them¬ selves up for offences who are not insane ?” “Yes.” ‘ Then that is no clear evidence of insanity ?” “No.” Now there was no act of lier’s proving that she was insane before the homicide, and none that showed she was insane after the homicide. Then, of course, and it don’t require any doctor to tell you that— it was the homicide which characterized the act. That is what the Doctor said. Well, what is the next question. “Doctor, what is the distinguishing feature in this case which you have passed upon which characterizes this homicide, so that you can pronounce it an insane act?” “None.” “ Is there any difference in the circumstances of this killing, as detailed in this court, which would show to you that this was the act of an insane person rather than the act of a sane one under the heat of passion, as the law designates it?” “None.” Well, then, gentlemen, where are we ? How did the Doctor know ? How could the Doctor say to you, how can you say, that this was an insane act, under such testimony as that ? There is nothing be¬ fore in the aot of the party, there is noth¬ ing afterwards in the act of the party, in fact, in the act itself, which indicates in¬ sanity ; and yet the Doctor says to you, in his zeal in this one idea, which has ab¬ sorbed his u'hole mind, and to which he has devoted his whole thoughts—“ There’s no doubt she was insane.” Well, to put it beyond all question, when all the testimony was in— “ Doctor—Do you think the Prosecution could produce any proof, after this transaction, to convince you that this woman was not in¬ sane ?” “None.” “ Can you conceive of any evidence that could be adduced, after the act, to convince you she was not insane?” “ No.” Well, now, gentlemen, is it possible ; is it possible that an intelligent jury of 138 citizens of common sense, are to be con¬ trolled by such testimony as this ? Is it possible ? But, giving the Doctor the benefit of his theories, he says there are certain indications showing a person to be a fit subject for insanity. Well, is every person that possesses those indications which the Doctor specifies—a nervous temperament, etc., is every person to be pronounced insane in this community on that ground ? Did it occur to you before these physicians were placed on the stand that there was any evidence in this case, outside of the testimony of the prisoner, which tended to show she was insane ? Think of it. Did that idea even suggest itself to your minds, that there was any testimony, outside of her declarations, that she was insane ? And now the Doctor tells you there was no doubt whatever of her insanity, independent of her own tes¬ timony. I say nothing to you of the tes¬ timony of Dr. Byrne, because it is obvious to you that Dr. Correy having testified in this matter, Dr. Byrne was called upon to stand as a tender to Dr. Correy, having crammed himself before he came here for the purposes of this trial, as he tells you, and Dr. Byrne was intended to be, as he was, a mere echo to Dr. Correy. If Dr. Correy was right, Dr. Byrne was right ; if Dr. Correy was wrong, Dr. Byrne was wrong. But let me suggest to you another idea with reference to this professional testimony. Suppose this had been a trial in a civil action ; suppose it was an action involving only a few dollars, based on a contract, if you please, made between the prisoner at the bar and somebody else; and suppose to avoid that contract these exact facts, which were testified to in this case, exclusive of the facts connected with the homicide, were established, and it was sought to be claimed before you that the contract was void because the prisoner was insane, how long would you sit in your jury box to listen to that defense ? Just as long as they were making it. Would you ever leave the box to hold that that doctrine was good ? Apply this principle to every-day life. Because, a person pos¬ sessing characteristics which may i her the subject of insanity, it would] < to transact business with her ; becai, you do, some “expert” doctor may i on the stand, and tell you there w i evidence of insanity in making th< o tract, and no insane act before or ft making it, but the party possessed c s teristics making her a fit subject i sanity, and therefore she was i ji W hen you go to your business pk « Monday look out for the man yoile with. See to it. Take a doctor wit j« indulges in these remarks : Ve ave already adverted several times to the wi; disfavor with which expert testimony oo.dupon by those who are best entitled to Lge f its value. It would not be difficult to iti)y instances of a similar tenor. Though vy ranch of science has been advanced with d rapid strides, it is not, perhaps, too ch;> say that from the time of Lord Mani- ' a 1 Folkes vs. Chadd, to the present tune, ■re j’s been a steady decrease in the credit to awjded to the testimony of scientific wit¬ hes We have before quoted the very forci- re irks with which the Scotch judge dis- sselsuch evidence. Similar remarks have uiom the judges and law writers in this at: and in England. Lord Denman, (one thmost eminent judges of England), says: 1 TLf be that medical men may be more in > liyit of observing cases of this kind than i' rsons, and there may be cases in which ilic; testimony may be essential, but I can- a 8j e with the notion that moral insanity ■ b better judged of by medical men than vi'S: Mr. Justice Grier (one of the most vie, judges of the United {States Supreme urtjsays: “Experience has shown that I'osi opinions of persons claiming to be ex- 'ts iy be obtained to any amount; and it ppens that not only days, but even vks, re consumed in cross-examinations to 1 th ikill or knowledge of the witnesses and ’ cc |ectness of their opinions, wasting the ie o he court and wearying its patience, and pie ig instead ot elucidating the questions oivi; in the issue.” Chief Justice Chap- : n \ ' Massachusetts, said: “I think the lnio i of experts are not so highly regarded wa| formerly, for while they often afford at a m deteimining facts, it often happens t ex rts may be found to testify to anything, "ev< absurd. ’ In the Tracy Peerage case, ra tnpbell said : “ I do not mean to throw lel itmn on Sir Frederick Madden. I dare say he is a very respectable gentleman, and did not mean to certify to anything untrue ; but really this confirms the opinion I have already entertained that hardly any weight is to be given to the evidence of what is called scientific witnesses. They come with a bias on their minds to support the cause in which they are embarked ; and it appears to me that Sir Fred¬ erick Madden, if he had not been a witness in a cause, and he had been asked on a different occasion what he thought of his handwriting, would have given a totally different answer.” Judge McLean (of the U. S. Supreme Court) bears witness to the remarkable conflict that is generally displayed in the opinions of scientific witnesses. The opinions of experts who have been examined are in conflict, and, so far as my experience goes, this has been uniformly the case where experts have been examined. In that case eight doctors deposed for the plaintiff and eleven for the defendant. Other instances might be adduced. Thus, in the famous Free¬ man trial, nine physicians and experts in insan¬ ity deposed one way, and seven quite as posi¬ tively the other. In the Andrews trial, Dr. Jarvis swore positively to his belief that the prisoner was afflicted at the time of the killing with momentary insanity, maniacal paroxysm, or transitory mania, while Dr. Choate swore as distinctly the other way, on the ground there was no such disease known to science. In the Huntington trial the doctors disagreed ; and in The People vs. Lake there were experts on both sides. See also the Schoepp murder trial, lately held in Pennsylvania, and the opinions con¬ tained in a pamphlet of the different medical societies as to the expert testimony on the strength of which the prisoner was convicted. Indeed, upon this point the authorities are agreed. Very little weight is to be attached to expert testimony, often none at all, and very often it is worse than useless for the court to listen to it. Let me add to this the late case tried in Baltimore, known as the “Wharton trial,” There was no question of opinion except upon abstract chemical science, the result of chemical analysis, concerning which there ought to be no difference, it was a question whether, upon a post mortem ex¬ amination of the body, poison was found therein. Ten eminent physicians and ex¬ perts testified there was a trace of poison in the body, and ten eminent physicians and experts testified there was plenty of poison there. I will read further from the same work : Experience has shown that matter of opinion, even on the most rigidly scientific subjects, is so chameleon-like, if we may so speak, in its character, that it is exceedingly likely to take its color, in the matter of legal evidence, from that of the side that has made the first overtures. The remarkable fact relating to this matter is 140 that the opinions of honest and conscientious men are often thus swayed and affected. Gentlemen, the prosecution has pro¬ duced no expert testimony in this case. From what I have read to you, you can see how easy it would have been to produce a conflict of testimony upon the main ques¬ tion raised here. We did not introduce it, first and last, because we had no idea of this defense—that the defense of insanity was to be relied upon. True, the counsel said to you, with his usual fairness, that inasmuch as we read the definition of mur¬ der to you which contains the clause in it that there should be a sound mind, and therefore we knew the defense was to be set up. Well, we commented likewise upon the clause that killing was necessary to constitute murder, but it never entered our minds that the defense would set up that Mr. Watson was not killed. Second¬ ly, and more, we did not introduce this testimony, because of the character of it, to which I have just called your attention. But, gentlemen, it all resolves itself into this question : you are the judges of this testimony, and you are the judges on all the testimony here. Just so far as these experts give you sound and substantial reasons for the belief in them, just so far it will recommend itself to your judgment; and I leave it to you to say whether the testimony given by these physicians, to which I have referred, and upon which they base their opinions, is such that re¬ commends itself to your sound belief. Now, the other ground on which it is claimed that this prisoner is insane is the fact that she was a subject of insanity, that there were certain indications, which the counsel specified, prior to the time of this killing, which would lead your minds, and ought to lead your minds, to that conclu¬ sion ; and you will pardon me if I refer to that testimony which is really all the legit- mate testimony for you to consider ia this case. The first point that they suggest to you is an hereditary predisposition in the family, and in proof of that they have in¬ troduced certain evidence, tending to show that the grandfather of this prisoner was insane. I will not occupy your timi commenting on that question. I will ] its character and credibility to you. this is the first step, and it is an impo: step, because the authorities say where this predisposition finds its out! that is the first thing that should be lo for. But the authorities say that wit this predisposition this particular kii insanity don’t often occur. Now, the of the prisoner should indicate it. tell you that at fifteen years of age young creature was seduced by the of a mau—a man forty odd years of i by his wiles, by the influence of his i tion, by something, I know not u seduced this young girl, and that tha i the first act that led to this insanity that to be received as a fact in this i< If you believe that these two peopl 1 live together at some time adulteroir- concede, if you please, that at the a ' nearly sixteen years the intimacy * menced, does that prove that the wilt i inclinations of this man seduced this } u girl ? because on that circumstanc tl defense in this case wholly stands. T in it in any aspect you please, insanit ( this other defense, which I shall coi I presently, it is based on the idea th: tl man is alone at fault, and she the iui ei victim, and to him alone is the pi is! ment. Let us take a common-sense ei Is there a particle of testimony i lb case except her own ? She was put po; the stand and examined on that si eel She says that at something upwards fil teen years of age she went to wo fo this man ; that she was employed her about six months when she was se>oed What occurred during those six mon$m human tongue can tell. The only tigii* which could tell it, from the nature th case, was her’s. She alone cou W] what arts were resorted to and what aid ishments were held out, what induwenti were extended to her to yield her vi is h this man. He cannot tell you. Heesii the cold, silent grave. He cannot you, on his part, for his lips are si it u death, whether the act was his or h s <<* 141 icier it was, as is general in these cases, n :ual act. B; conceding even that this is true, ithis girl was seduced by this man, is toe claimed as a proposition of law or hcnan experience, or is it to be accept- a fact without proof that when a girl if sixteen years of age loses her virtue sii a fact from which counsel can argue ,a ty ? Often and often are girls mar- d it that age. I appeal to your own sedation ; I appeal to the information 1 lave obtained around in the social cl how many young girls to-day are in ' ouses of prostitution in New York, 1 ounger than was this girl. How nyoung girls to-day under sixteen are icng their wares about the stores and nfthe offices in New York, who are as d to dispose of their persons as they c their wares. Is it an accepted fact t ccause a girl is sixteen or thereabout ,t le is not guitly in any sense if she csier virtue ? Take this young girl in thlar. She commences work at eight rof age. She continues continuously fa ories up to the time of this occur- oi Seven or eight years she mingles nicously with women and girls older herself. She is described as a girl of isil precocity and intelligence, by their a finesses—the smartest girl, some of jaployers say, they ever saw, extra fffjent; and although the counsel tried iit it by confining it to mere work, rmesses would not understand it in t ay, but would have it in general in- igice. Now the difference between a in girl in your parlor and mine at fif- n; sixteen years of age, who is kept le the paternal roof, with father and th • watching over her, who has scarce- ni gled in society, knows but little of vrld, and the girl who has worked in ul c factory among all kinds of people n ghtto fifteen years of age, in knowl- te, f human nature and precocity is the ie 3 is the difference in the plant which w in the shade, not exposed to the igl'ating rays of the sun and to the air, 1 tit plant which has grown out in the sun and is used to buffeting the wind and storm. Is it to be assumed that this man who lies in his grave is this libertine des- scribed to you so pathetically and grandly by counsel on the other side ? But assum¬ ing this without proof, what is the fact ? This young girl and this man enter into that relation. To further illustrate the “wiles” of this man, I omitted to state another branch of evidence. The wit¬ nesses were made to state that he brought confectionery and various things which would please young girls in this factory, and it was to be inferred from that that this man was that libertine. Well, only one question disposed of all of that. Q. How often were these things brought? A. About once a week or two. Q. A lunch or refreshment of which every one in the factory partook, male and female ? A. Certainly. The counsel could not avoid conceding that if from an innocent motive it afforded no ground for censure. Is there any evi¬ dence before you showing that it was not an innocent motive ? Is there anything criminal in that ? Is there anything indi¬ cating the libertine in it ? But a little more—the party has his likeness taken ! The counsel gave me an admonition during his summing up that I was not good at stage effects. He is correct. I concede it, and therefore I never have attempted them. But I cannot say that of him. He has had the experience of nine years. No man I ever knew can excel him in that. When he brought in the photograph of those two little girls it was a part of that stage effect to which he referred, and it ended in the effect that this man sent it home three days after it was taken. Under what circumstances it was taken, whether at the solicitation of the two girls, he being there in the factory with them, or at whose instance, it does not appear. Nothing appears in proof to show that it was taken from a wrong motive. The next fact relied on to establish this proposition is that he was her employer, and had special control over her in that way. Mr. Bachman carried on that business. Mr. Watson had an interest in it. Mr. Watson worked by the day continually in it. He 142 was at work there at the time of the homi¬ cide, and the witnesses testify that he took charge as foreman of the men, as this de¬ fendant took charge of the women. They were, so far as that factory was concerned, on an equality. Mr. Bachman discharged her w r hen she was to be discharged, and Mr. Bachman employed her when she was to be employed. His name was the only one up in the business, although Watson was regularly employed, and had some interest in the business. Well, the next fact relied upon to prove insanity is a change of temperament, a change of habit, a change in dress. Why, gentlemen, she did not dress quite as neat¬ ly as she had done ; she got more careless in her whole demeanor, and latterly she got thinner. She formerly weighed one hundred and twenty-five pounds. Now she is down to less than one hundred. Is it anything strange that a girl from the age of fifteen or sixteen years, for the next two or three years gets thinner? It some¬ times happens without disease. It often happens as they grow up they are thinner. But this is not all: she had a disease peculiar to women ; the counsel asserts caused by this man, caused by this liber¬ tine. Where is the evidence of that? They don’t tell us what that disease was particularly, perhaps from motives of deli¬ cacy. But we can surmise what it was. But if your surmise and mine is the same, is there anything in the fact that these people were living together in that way that would produce this disease. Does not that disease exist in the community among the virtuous? I appeal to your own gen¬ eral information whether it is not com¬ mon amongst women. Shall it be said that because a woman who has a husband for ten months and then goes to Washington to be treated for this disease peculiar to the female sex, that that man with whom she was living in this way other than her husband caused that disease? Is that the way cases of this kind are to be tried, and is it an assumption that people are insane upon this state of facts? This disease, distressing and wearing as it is, no doubt, among thousands of women in oux* munity, is not caused by libert a Well, that is disposed of. The next til 4 4 great misfortune and grief. ” Wha i» misfortune and grief; and w'hat a tb evidences of misfortune and grief? ig may be grief; there may be misfc u; but where are the evidences of grief Li us see. The first evidence is \vh: tin “young girl ” said while at Washing a.- “I feel as if there was a great curse b ^ over me. ” Gentlemen, there was no great us 4 4 hanging over” her. It was upo be What was it? When amid the tli der of Sinai it was handed down frorGe Almighty, “Thou shalt not commiini tery,” those who committed it sulcta themselves to that curse. Could 3 4 otherwise, when she walked abroad nde that injunction from the Almighty tii| upon her, ten months with a husbar ani at the same time cohabiting with thi; the man—could she do otherwise, if she id; conscience within her, than to say, • her is a great curse” not over, but ipoi me?” When she walked out into to could she expect the flowex-s won! loci so bright or the grass as green, or t :th songs of the birds would strike as upon her ear with this great momgiui resting upon her? There was a cons ‘not This was the first proof we have thi case of its sway. But it was not inpiu It is not necessaiy to resort to the issn theory to explain the effect of conshli« Now what next? She made a dec! itia at the stove, on the morning of theoni cide. She said 4 ‘she wished she was ‘«d.' In addition to the crime I have alre yre ferred to, there was another cause if h< making that remai'k. She was n( oni] resting under the incubus of crim b( she was contemplating another, andiiha very bosom was the pistol with whii six intended to perform the act. 44 B ter, as the Counsel said, “ might she filled than to have canned out that crime.: i It is a little surprising that all th ? ii* dications of insanity relied upon, exc 'tin( this one which I mentioned, occur d <* 143 orning of the homicide. It is a lit- s -prising that they all occurred after ■ ] stol came out of that drawer and was ;cL in her bosom, but not so surprising t]: contemplation of the act she was tat time conceiving. She looked vi in the eye;” she looked “pale;” t ; is a sing-ular comment upon the uof the doctor’s testimony. He says sva hardly possible that wildness of the ■: d that paleness of the face could pre- iei contemplated murder. That may yi.r experience. If it is. you will agree h die doctor in that regard. Now is tat all? It is true, ingenious theories y >e suggested; it is true, declamation y e had by the hour upon the rela- naf these parties. But where are the is I shall have occasion when we come ir ther branch of this subject to again •n that. But, gentlemen, I submit to ; men of plain common sense whether s efense of insanity in any aspect, etjer made from the testimony of ex- rtpr from any testimony, is not a in: But, gentlemen, that is not the 1 i fense in this case. This defense is prised for the purpose of ringing the tnjis on what is claimed to be the on; of this young girl on the part of s fin. Now I am not prepared to say it ere are not cases where a jury are stifled in their own consciences in paling from the strict letter of the law 1 riding a person harmless for an n which comes strictly within the tu . It may be a question of grave asi nation, as I have suggested once roi during the trial of this case, whether th;e cases where the moral sense of n appealed to, in the judicial judg- mt»f the juror, it would not be better le e it to the tribunal where the law ir e it and to say that the letter of the ' 1: the benefit of society should be idi ted, and that the Executive may ter se. I do not make that remark rm he motive which has been assigned I made that remark with the same ion that I make now. If you are tisi d beyond reasonable doubt that this m< gg' crime was committed would it not be bet¬ ter to find the prisoner guilty and sustain the law for the benefit of society, and, in¬ asmuch as human laws cannot be perfect, inasmuch as they cannot cover every case that might arise,—God Almighty alone can make laws to cover all cases—depend upon the interposition of the Executive to whom the law has wisely given the power of re¬ prieve, pardon or commutation? I do not mean to say—and I hope I may not while I live to occupy the position I now hold say that if there is in the minds of the jury any doubt known to the law they should not give the prisoner the benefit of it. Ev¬ ery prisoner is entitled to that. But the question is whether, in a clear case, where that reasonable doubt of the prisoner’s guilt does not] exist, and where nevertheless the punishment of guilt would shock the moral sense of the jury and the community, would it not be better to leave it where the law has placed it. But, gentlemen, I think I will show you this is not such a case. The true foundation of punishment is be¬ cause it is right. The theory of the law is that a man should be punished because it is right, not because of any particular good to community, although that is a consequence which is supposed to follow punishment. But the principle that lies down deep at the bottom of human pun¬ ishment is because it is right. It is the same principle that the Divine Ruler acts upon in punishing His subjects ; but as human laws cannot be made to nicely dis¬ criminate and to do exact and divine jus¬ tice, there is this humane provision to which I have referred. It has happened in the jurisprudence of this country, as in other intelligent communities, that cases have occurred where it would shock the moral sense of the jury and of the com¬ munity to execute a man, although the man had strictly placed himself within the letter of the law. Many such cases have been read to you through the progress of this trial. It has been resorted to largely, resorted to by Courts, by counsel, and by juries, that under cover of the plea of in¬ sanity that moral sense should speak out 144 in a verdict of acquittal. Now I recognize the fact and I cannot shut my eyes, if I would, to the fact. It is not to be denied that these cases have occurred; and with the limitations or qualifications which I have already expressed to you. I don’t deny their propriety. Is this such a ca e? I shall refer, after the lengthy argument that has been made to you in which many of these cases have been cited, ouly to two or three of them, simply to illustrate the principle for which I contend. There are cases, conspicuous and prominent, of which the case of Sickles may perhaps be taken as the leading one, one which per¬ haps the moral sense of the community approved; and such a case as that of Cole. But I did not say, gentlemen of the jury, as I was represented to have said, when I cited this case, that the verdict was an out¬ rage on public justice. I said the charge of the Court when that jury came in, as to the principles of law, on the excitement of the moment, was an outrage on the principles of legal justice, but not the ver¬ dict of the jury; and I say now it was the only instance on record, so far as I can discover, where that doctrine was held by the Courts as to the preponderance of proof on the question of insanity. But what principle lies at the bottom of these cases ? A wronged husband ! In the one case, a man had confided to his friend, who had visited .this home as a friend, the cherished wife of his bosom; and that man, under the guise of friendship and the shield of hospitality, stole into that home and debauched her under circumstances of peculiar atrocity. In the other case, a man was at the front fighting the battles of his country, standing in the face of the foe in defense of your liberties and mine, and in support of the government tinder which we live; into his home, while away, crept the reptile, in the guise of his own family protector, and debauched his wife. You don’t believe that Cole was insane when he slew the destroyer of his wife, of his honor, and the destroyer of his peace, who made him the object of the finger of scorn and jeering all through life if he submitted to it, and the jest of his associates. Yot ti believe this man was insane. No 11 the community believes that either ( > Sickles were insane ; but you do 1 e that to have hanged these men wont i been an outrage on natural justice, id disgrace to the civilization of the ag ai adverse to the moral sense of evert g thinking man. Those verdicts wer * dered under the guise of law ; but n not law. Take another case. He a Pierce, who had a sister whom he at e he had grown up with her from chile >o had accompanied her everywhere h were sole companions, entwining bi hearts with brotherly and sisterly affi in in bonds as strong as life itself. Unc f promise of marriage the seducer can ai disrupted those tendiils. Whei tl ruined brother asked for satisfac n marriage, the destroyer treated hiiri scorn, spurned him with a scoff, am ai “I’ll see you damned first.” Ft tl brutal remark his life was the forfeit B you don’t believe that brother was i ai I do not. Nobody does ; nobody.« unless it be the demented doctoiwl testified to it. But the moral see community was satisfied. Now, w it the principle that pervades these sa Can you point to me a case anywle the books, any one among all this i at ous array of cases which the counst 10 after hour read to you, to prove tha he was such a thing as insanity ? and tl an-ay of cases, think of it, was the o: of them where the person w'lio beca ti avenger was a guilty party ? Tell e there was. It was the innocent par was the outrage perpetrated on him hi ■was avenged. Do you thiuk insanity ou have been found if the guilty worn lit shot the man instead of the husbai ? think not. You would say to he) “ takes two to commit adultery ;” ano'bt God’s command, “Thou slialt not cudi adultery,” was implanted in the brst every man and woman, it was equallym ing on both sexes. To the worn: ? ( would say, “ You, being a jiarticipit i the offense, are not to inflict the pedty 145 i the case of the brother. It was j sition in which he was placed before immunity ; it was the outrage upon u, it was the shock to his feel- s, and the thought that all down oifh life he was a marked man, to )i it could be said, “ You are the man os sister was seduced, and you sub- iti to it.” The husband and the >tlr were innocent. Take the case of ss Harris, at Washington, where she k he weapon in her own hands. She •i mocent. Her victim had promised a ry her ; she was desperately in love h im: she sought him out under the ir of a great outrage, because of his mining her. She killed him ; but it e was insane you don’t believe. It (r 1 she is now in the Asylum for the but she is there probably as the ibf killing the man to whom she was nood. Every impulse of her heart had uelmt toward him, and every circum- .116 showed that it was more probably rult of that act than the cause of it. dot follow in these cases where subse- ■n y people have been sent to a lunatic hr., that they were insane before the t- eople have been made insane by the v't of murder. At common law, where uaifound another in the act of inter¬ im with his wife, the law said he would unjustified if he killed him on the spot, lowed upon that as a sufficient reason ; d iwent no further. That is the prin¬ ce ping at the bottom of those cases, inch I have expressed to you here ; w a; because of the outrage upon him : 1 : wounded honor, because his domes- ■ pice was destroyed, because he was a ai'kl man in all future times. In these tteilays the sense of the community is, it ids principle ought to be extended, 1 at it shall not be confined to the iua time when this offense is committed, de oral sense of the community in lesejrses is that the innocent shall be held amiss if, in some extreme cases, they ive jaken the law into their own hands. mv , 1 this such a case ? Let us look at the ets. Let us see if this case is anything but the ordinary case of adultery between man and woman. If you sustain the de¬ fense in this case it will be a precedent that, wherever an adultery is committed it shall be right for the woman, under all these circumstances, years after, if need be, to take her paramour’s life. The principle being conceded that a man may kill another while in actual intercourse with his wife, then, if the principle of this defense is true, his wife may kill the paramour in the act or at any time afterward. That is the principle contended for. Now, will it impress itself upon your moral sense, or the moral sense of any com¬ munity, that a person may kill another whom he or she may have received in an embrace, in the very act ? I submit to you, there is no such appeal to your moral sense. Gentlemen, when that proposition w r as made to you it did not occur to you, nor did it occur to this community, as it does when an innocent party has been the avenger. This principle was first asserted in the case of Laura D. Fair, and this de¬ fense was stolen body and soul from that case. It had its birth on the far distant shores of the Pacific. It met its death there at the hands of an intelligent jury— the fate it deserved—in a verdict of guilty. Its spirit takes its flight from there, and now, for the first time it rears here its polluting form. Now this case, stripped of all the appeals that have been so for¬ cibly made to you—to your feelings and your sympathies, all of which can be made the more readily because there is a growing- feeling in the community against capital punishment—and, I hope, the time will come, when it has grown and blossomed to maturity—that it is not wise for men to hang other men ; that this had better be left with God to kill. We feel reluctance to convict in a capital case ; it is an act which we feel all through life afterwards might possibly have been unjustifiable. There is another thing. There is a reluc¬ tance to inflicting this penalty upon women. No man born and bred a gentleman, no man born with the instincts of a man in his bosom does not inherently feel a sym- 146 pathy with women. It is one of the evi¬ dences of civilization. It is one of the de¬ velopments of the intelligence of the age ; and if it were not so, society would fall back to a state of barbarism and chaos. No better evidence could be adduced of the decline of the social fabric and a ten¬ dency toward barbarism than the fact that this noble and manly sentiment had ceased to animate us. And it is peculiar, beyond all others, to the American people. It is a subject of common remark that there is more deference to women among the edu¬ cated American people than any other on the face of the earth—a most conclusive evidence of their advancement in civiliza¬ tion. Here is where the Prosecution in this case has the most to contend against. These are grounds on which impassioned appeals have been made to you; and to these instincts, which, as men, are in your breasts. But are w r e to decide questions in that way ? Are we to assume a state of facts, and then apply these noble prin¬ ciples to them in a court of justice. Do those facts exist ? That is the question. Let us see what the facts are. This girl, something over fifteen years of age, goes to work in this factory. Precocious, intelligent beyond her years, experienced more than others of her age, she remains there for six months. Assuming the fact to be that she is seduced—she has intercourse with a man of family, known by her to be so. What occurred before this inter¬ course nobody can tell—at least nobody does. The remarks on the disparity of age are already before you in another branch of the case. She continues this intimacy for a considerable period of time —a year or more—and then she marries. All that time—and it is brought up here as one of the main features of this defense— she was attending Sunday School; she took part in the exercises of the school; she attended regularly; was an excellent scholar, high in moral character, and never known to act out of the w r ay. Sup¬ pose it had been whispered in the ears of those Sabbath School teachers who testi¬ fied here, a month before she w& m ried, that “this girl is only unti guise of morality, that there is an as ^ tion of innocence on her part; and hit she is reciting from the Holy Book (}| and listening to the utterances c he teachers, she is in the continuance o la terv ; do you know that she has be fc a year voluntarily submitting to tla braces of a married man ? ” Would is witnesses, when called upon in a cc ti justice to testify, have said that her m acter was excellent ? I think not. iic of it. She had become seventeen at of age, or thereabouts ; she attende th Sabbath School all the time, and h i genuity enough, design enough and ^ tion enough to impose upon them . i human being suspecting. I liana “voluntarily.” Why not? If it w; n voluntarily, what was it ? She d father, she had a step-mother; sh v living with them ; she had a Sunday! M teacher, in whom she could natural! iff confidence, if virtuous ; she had ass ii scholars who went, to school witl bf some older than herself. Did sboi plain to anybody about it ? If this ‘ re grief” was pressing upon her, :fl “great grief” that caused insanit * weighing down on her mind, teariji her- flesh by piece-meal, reducing he to skeleton, is it not a little strange tb » spoke of it to no human being ? T counsel appreciated that. He undto to say she had not any confidante. 11 confidante ! Look at the circumstjo “Voluntarily,” then, I say. Thei'» not an hour, there was not a mi a when she might not have madehersefi from that connection ; there was mW when she might not have avoided it B this is not all. Three months aft. tl she resumed and continued this int:»« this “innocent girl,” who ought,!' 1 " of her innocence, to be dismissed fro! tl court-room with the benedictions j I jury, kept up this intimacy while si * deceiving the man to whom she waO married. She was about to take th n to one of the most holy relations of bi 147 m. nature is capable, if it is genuine ; a that time while he was courting her, kliose endearments which always at- 1 lat peculiar relation were practiced v n them—this “artless,” this “inno- t girl was deceiving this man. She rid this young man, and one month riiot to exceed two, she renewed this impy. She made him promise on the dy lible that he would not renew it; and ir>ne month after she renewed it. Was : t s promise understood to be mutual? abas it that induced her thus to re- lis intimacy ? Was that the time erne threatened her with exposure ? poire ! Think of it! Here is a hus- 1 o defend her; here is her father onshe left because he so much as sug- te< to her that this seemed to be the ■, it she indignantly tells him that she i tie care of herself. Was not that a orijle opportunity for her to rid herself u bis appalling thraldom ? Was not i < opportunity for her to divest her- E c this great and secret grief ? Was re, curse hanging over her or upon ? She did not think there was. She tiujy spurned her father, and three ii terward she left his house. Well, vs her husband. Deceased renewed itimacy ; she renewed it. Now we e • rived at the point where the cont¬ ent especially reaches them; now iltery in the broadest sense in which ai be stated. She is deceiving her ibal—if he was deceived, which is not fcai-she continues this adulterous in- ac ; She says that he threatened her h iposure; and it is a singular fact 1 1. only coercion of any kind which te ified to, with her lips open in her i i fense, here as she is under the it eadful circumstances in which a nai being can be placed, charged with ofLise the penalty of which is death, It eiry inducement that could possibly fel: 1 upon on the mind of the prisoner ra£ i 3 tier own statement in the most nae way, with counsel nine years tistned to stage effect, and entirely ipvnt to bring it m with immense eclat—and what does she testify to ? The only coercion he exercised was that of ex¬ posure. A married man with five children! With business in the community, a reputa¬ tion there, with a daughter fifteen or six¬ teen years of age, and yet this “girl,” as she is called, tells you that she was induced to renew this intimacy through fear of ex¬ posure, within one month after she had taken this young man and sworn before the altar of God, in the presence of His minister, under circumstances as sacred as a human being could be placed, that she would live in honor of him ! Well, the best commentary I can make on that is another part of her testimony where she tells you, gentlemen of the jury, that when she told her husband of it, why, Watson begged like a dog that she would not ex¬ pose him, for fear of the effect on his family, as she says, when her husband threatened to take legal proceedings against him. Is not that a commentary on the claim that this woman was coerced by threats of exposure ? Did not she know what you know, and what every person knows, that he had every thing to lose in comparison to her? He had five children growing up, and a wife, and yet you are asked to believe this was a thral¬ dom of this man over her. What is the next fact developed here ? She goes to New Britain. Was she com¬ pelled to go there ? She was an expert work-woman; her own father was in the same business—her father whom she had left; she had worked at it from the age of eight years, and was the smartest woman that could be found in that line of busi¬ ness. What occasion was there for her to go to New Britain ? Counsel says she re¬ ceived a letter, and then the agony was upon her. Well, you would think that letter was a great chain around her person with some hideous monster at the other end of it dragging her along against her will. It don’t appear what it was. But can you conceive of a letter that would coerce this woman to go to New Britain if she did not desire to go ? She goes there. While there she visits him and his family. 148 There is a position where one would think she could rid herself of this thraldom if she desired to, if ever there was to be such a position. There was the wife of the man, there were his five children, all at home, of the man w T hom this intimacy had so debauched that it drew him from his family, his house and fireside; there was this wife, now widow, who came upon the stand here—this matronly woman, with all the feminine instincts,—imagine the feel¬ ings of this prisoner, this partner in this criminal intimacy, when she went to that house; imagine her feelings if she was human. She goes through it, and tells you even of the proposition made to get rid of the wife on Sunday evening, in order that this intercourse might be renewed. She does not tell you that she objected to it; she don’t say whether she in any way objected to it, nor whether the proposition was carried out. Do you suppose it oc¬ curred to her that the influence she was exerting over this man enticed him from his family ? She was “ fond of children;” she “caressed children.” She probably caressed his children. No emotion de- veloped itself there. At length she ex¬ posed this fact to her husband, she tells you, and Watson begged she would not expose him. Well, she returned to Brook¬ lyn with her husband, and it was two or three months before Watson came back. Then the intimacy was renewed again, and she then tells you she was induced to do it by threats. These probably are the same threats to which she has already referred— threats of exposure. These are the only threats. At any rate it should have oc¬ curred to her then—Watson’s sensibilities on the subject of exposure. Why he be¬ sought her and her husband not to hold his family up to disgrace. Did it occur then to her to say—“ Watson, I can ex¬ pose you, if you attempt to renew this in¬ timacy. Bemember the time when you begged I would not expose you; I can hold you now ?” Nothing. This offended woman, thoroughly in this thraldom, who cannot get away from the influence of this man and his coercion, she don’t see this process of accomplishing this resul yj the intimacy still goes on. WatsoD to¬ wards visits the house. The exposu M been made to her husband, and sh oi- tinues to work at the factory or f tl factory. Watson continues to call ten as before, when her husband was ier- and when he was not there, a wt m visitor. The husband knew all abot H What did he suppose Watson was 1% for ? There is no getting away frc tit conclusion that her husband conmiu this matter; there is no getting aw a; -an the conclusion that he gave his «i to this relation between this man aD thi- woman. Well, now, what else ? This accc tin is to be tried on evidence. What ev net has been adduced different from \\ t ] have stated ? Where is the proof i kin coercion ? Where is the influenc that kept her at the factory ? Where tl thraldom that kept her to work fo: fat- son ? Where is the influence wine pre¬ vented her telling anybody of it ■ tepi her husband ? Where is it ? Livin nth two men, receiving the embraces « two men ! She had experience enough SL knows the world. This innocent wi ai I Now, come down to the day of the mil cide. No human being saw an; um ■ wrong down to that day. But shtdl| you lie had threatened her, abuse her, accused her of being with other me haj called her opprobrious names ; one the witnesses says he had threatened dis¬ charge her the day before. They d not get along harmoniously. This rt tint terminated as it always does. Wli thi Creator said, Thou shalt not commhdnl tery, He affixed to it a penalty; ** that people cannot live together tk; harmoniously and happily. Ther is i gnawing conscience, and if there no that there is some other principle t’t in terferes. What was it here ? ^t-' 01 began to be jealous. He thoug sh 1 went with other men. He might hay)«a wrong. Yon are bound to assume ill was wrong. It existed ; it is incidpt b the relation. He was a man fifty y 130 149 he was a young woman with a hus- 1. She was getting tired of him. It e sculiarity of this relation that, not r ent to her husband. The question “to you think that will suit you ? >» “>o you think that will suit him ? ” yo i think that is the kind of a pistol he id ke ? Men do not ordinarily like kid. Be that as it may, she takes piol in her bosom next morning, sai she did it to frighten him. Here nn forty to fifty years of age ; she is >g frighten him ! How? How she ’in to frighten him is not explained, i n. know how except to shoot. Prob- S3 was going to frighten him by ’tii, for the pistol was not only loaded on bullet, but by several more, ditji him from what ? Does a woman t a istol to protect her virtue ? The ier g look, the scorn and indignation, re demeanor of the virtuous woman ■ he such a proposition is made is her tecjjm. She needs no more. It is not '• v r hat was it ? You may believe toe it to frighten him, if you can. !Se idications of her appearance that day, was there not reason enough for them without assigning insanity ? She was there contemplating this murder. Let us imagine the thought in her mind : “ He accused me last night of being with other men. He threatens to discharge me; he has called me opprobrious names after all that I have yielded to him. If he does it again I will kill him. ” That is the plain statement of the case. He does it again. She goes below in the forenoon at eleven o’clock and returns again, and he then accuses her of being down there with another man. Then she resolved to caiwy it into effect. She sat down by the stove and the struggle en¬ sued. When she sat there what were the thoughts that influenced her? “I have resolved to kill this man; I have got a weapon here to do it; he has again insulted me; it shall be done. I will now carry out this fixed purpose. ” There is no looking down into the depths of human nature. Some women would have quailed at this contemplation. But history shows that some of the worst crimes have been committed by women. She says it shall be done. Then she speaks out, and in the struggle between conscience and the re¬ solve to perpetrate the act she says—“I wish I were dead;” in other words—“ The struggle is too great for me to bear.” But she does bear it. She knows what time Watson goes out. His custom is to go about five minutes before twelve to his dinner. She precedes him about three minutes, and between three minutes to twelve o’clock and twelve o'clock the man is dead. What occurred there on that occasion no living person knows but she who perpetrated the act. The victim can¬ not testify. But I say to you, gentlemen, here to-day, that her statement cannot pos¬ sibly be true. At any rate, be that as it may, the next thing, or three hours after that, she surrenders herself, and there with her hus¬ band, brother and father, she makes a statement to which I shall presently refer. But first on this subject of coercion. She tells you that she went out into the hall and that he again made there accusations against her. She says, “he seized hervio- 150 lently in a lewd way, in an indecent way, and insisted in their going out for a pur¬ pose that they had often before gone for ; that he seized her twice, and that she resist¬ ed, and that some how or other she shot him; she did not fire but once ; she did not in¬ tend to shoot him ; she don’t know exactly how she fired—at anyrate she did not in¬ tend to kill him. She knew nothing of it.” Now, gentlemen, think of the probabili¬ ties of the truth of that statement. She knows she can never be contradicted by any human witness. She knows she has ingenious counsel to advise with her, and she tells her story in that court under the pressure from the trial for this crime. Now as to the direction of this wound. She is not particularly a short girl; he is five feet nine or ten inches in height. This ball enters behind the ear, not in front, passes up, and would have come out at the top of the head if it had continued. That shot could not have been fired by any person who was not some ways below the deceased. If the wound had been in front it might be conceived that the pistol was held low and was accidentally dis¬ charged. But the ball comes from be¬ hind and below at such an angle it would have been impossible unless from almost directly below. It could not have been fired in any proximity to the victim as it would have blackened the neck. There is no place within three feet where it could have been fired. I appeal to your own ex¬ perience on that subject if it was not so. I say that pistol was fired from the lower floor. The direction of the shot proves it. Other circumstances prove it; and this statement is only another part of this stage effect. Standing down in the hall below, as he came down those stairs, she knowing the time he came down, she stood there, and as he turned back pn seeing her armed, fired almost beneath him, and it went up in the direction which the wound indicated. She lay in wait for him, waited for his coming. When she was found she was found on that floor near the door. How happened it this woman went down those stairs to the door below ? fa* happened it that she followed that pi tumbling down those stairs if it coul w( fallen down the whole flight and is ml there ? Is it not more probable th & would have turned to the door abo- on of which he came and where she wi eil But she is found below. Now anotl in- probability in this story. They woui ut, you believe that this man’s intent hi that time were to seek another of th;» terviews. Let us see the probability of that, la is a woman afflicted with a disease, ;■ ture of which you are called uj fc imagine ; and also with the peculii on dition of woman at stated period* 8k was so afflicted by each of these corn oil that it affected her severely ; this n i, » she alleges—and we have her testim rfc it, as we have in most all these ms rs- gave her medicine to bring on these p :ods and, as she said, kept “track of ml She was asked the question ; this id n in my mind ; I wanted to see what i far was ; I asked her whether she was & habit of informing him, or whether kep account of the time when these nod should arrive, she said he kept the a rad On her own theory and statement, T tan knowing she was in this conditio in knowing the severity of these perio to the complications of her disorders, unr asked to believe, that he, with that ncl ledge, was insisting on her going o 1 witl him for that purpose ; this is incitibk The first thing she says is in needs* with the facts, “He was the ruinaWH me.”—That is the way any worn an rod express herself as to a man with wliasi had been guilty of adultery.” “id the ruination of me, and I shot him ji was not any immediate collision Bl she says she did not remember wit sb said. Do you believe she did not jnen ber what she said ? Let us see. S mi Ellen Curley at the door, and she id > Ellen Curley, ‘ ‘ Watson is lying at t“ fa of the stairs ; I killed him shtkw pretty well what she had done then U doctor says the prisoner might kno wh 151 cl, and still be insane. 'But to the nan mind, when a person relates a 3i ant of facts correctly—makes no mis¬ ts bout it—if you meet a person in the ei and he details information to you joves to be true, the presumption is ; 1 is sane. It don’t appear where she aer this occurence until an hour and d thereafter, except from her own ci;nt. Biit while on this lower floor, bther, with whom she went to pur¬ se his pistol, makes his appearance ; iat does he say ?—“Fanny, I told nj to do this. ” There was no mistake uthe person whom he addressed. The us says that is not to be believed, be- se obody else testified to it. Does any- ly mtradict it ? Is there any occasion ih prosecution to bring a half dozen netes on a question that is not dis- ed That would be a new way of try- a ise. Other witnesses were put on siad by the prosecution, who were re t the time; does the counsel ask m hether he said that ? He does not itu: the question ; he knows what the £ will be. But more than that, the ns gave notice during the trial that other would be produced whenever reaired him. For two months, or a nthnd a half, we have been trying to 1 hn. He is gone ; but he seems to be lerhe control of the counsel, and he dd roduce him at this trial. This tes- ■ 'ii came out before the coroner. The 'onj,’s minutes are accessible to counsel thdefense, and he read them and saw •m.l He had a right to believe that that may would be produced here. Where b rother to contradict it ? Where is hi her to explain it, if it is capable of iai tion ? It all amounts just to this ; ■ an her brother had talked it over ; she 1 tel her brother what Watson had said uermd she meant to take revenge on n. | ! Fanny, I told you not to do this.” and a half afterwards she went to ion house. Where was she in the i he b si ant ie ? She it. i om says she was in that low although it be true ordinarily at o i witness uncontradicted is enough for one fact, yet where the witness is the prisoner on trial, and has inducements to testify in her own favor, as she must have, it behooves her to have some evidence in confirmation of this fact; I don’t believe it. I believe—and it is a fair conjecture on the circumstances of the case—that rather than being in that room pending the public ex¬ citement, their relations and friends con¬ gregated about her somewheres, and talked this over, to see how they could get out of this awful situation in which this criminal act had placed her ; and it is a significant circumstance that when she went to de¬ liver herself up she says she had no con¬ versation with anybody present on the subject of the killing during the time. Remember that. No person had told her Watson was killed. For what did she go to give herself up ? She did not know at the time of the killing that he was dead. No one told her before she went to the station house that she had committed this homicide. Where did the information come from that led her to the station house ? I ask you to answer that ques¬ tion, if you can. They had been some where contriving this explanation what she should say at the station house. It did not occur to them that she was insane; that was for the subsequent astuteness of counsel and his peculiar stage effect. She goes to the station house; she met Capt. Woglom. Now this was a pretty natural transaction, and the key to the whole case is there. She said to Capt. Woglom, “ He seduced me.” I think I ought to read the exact testimony, because it is just to her as well as to every one. In Capt. Wog- lom’s testimony he said : She said they had the night before had a quar¬ rel in the shop, and he had told her she was going with other men, and that she was so worked up in her mind. This does not appear to be the entire testimony ; at any rate, the substance was that he had seduced her ; that he had fol¬ lowed her in the street, in her house and at her home ; that he had threatened her, and accused her the night before of being with other men : had called her epithets, which she named; that she could not 152 stand it any longer, and had shot him for satisfaction. Could not stand what any longer ? She details the opprobrious epi¬ thets and charges, and the abuse he heaped upon her, and in referring to that said: “I shot him for satisfaction.” Satisfac¬ tion ! What does that mean ? Is there anything implied in that word ? Is not that the key to the motive actuating this deed ? Satisfaction for what ? ‘ ‘ Satis¬ faction because he called me opprobrious names and accused me of being with other men. ” Did she say then as she says now : “He pulled me violently on the stairs?” Did she say then : “He committed a per¬ sonal indignity on me ? ” Nothing of the kind. The “ stage effect ” was not yet pre¬ pared. She delivers herself to the station house. She talks to Sergeant Bunce. I have his testimony here verbatim : I asked her where she shot him. She said, ‘upstairs.” I asked her what she shot him for. She said he had abused her and insulted her. I asked her if he struck her. She said no, that he abused her and called her names. She said she went down stairs that morning, after she came up he accused her of being down stairs with another man, and she shot him. Now, what is the import of that lan¬ guage ? Could there be a plainer view of the motive for that deed ? The counsel complained that the prosecution had not developed a motive. The motive is before yon, in the view of the prosecution. She subsequently talked with Detective Lan- gan. Now, gentlemen, there are two ways of disposing of evidence where it is not satisfactory. One is to say you don’t be¬ lieve it, and to belittle it and sav it is improper as a declaration of the prisoner. There is another way not quite so honor¬ able, not quite so fail-, but it is often re¬ sorted to by counsel in the trial of a case ; even fair counsel—counsel who try cases so fairly and honorably that they can sit in judgment on opposing counsel—even such counsel sometimes resort to that prac¬ tice, and that is to abuse witnesses. When Detective Langan went off from this stand to meet with that sneer from the counsel that made this audience laugh — a sneer peculiar to this very correct counsel — had Detective Langan said anything b * rant that ? In his deportment was | anything to justify a fair and hon counsel to treat him in that way, < that the testimony was damaging case ? In summing up he berates th for five or ten minutes, in language ’ if he deserved it, showed immense s the part of counsel on the other s the use of epithets and abuse. Whi i Detective Langan done ? A detect the police force ; his exclusive bush i look after crime, protecting you ai when we are sleeping in our quiet 3 when we are in the midst of our fa i and enjoying ourselves in domestic t —such a man as he, ferreting out i for the protection of that fireside 11 which we sit—I know nothing in hi:» pation which merits abuse. I know n ac, in his manner which merits abuse. la tlemen, I leave that with you. Was iai anything in this act which merit i; He was ordered to'bring this woma: na the Fifth Precinct station house to A Headquarters. He was not responsi ifa that. He was personally detailed >g with her. They went down in tin an She had been to the station house, 4 I under the express injunction of In In band to tell the whole story, she ha cm fessed the homicide, had given the itn and had told her story. He w; n “pumping” her, as ordinarily diffl nated, for information. They alrea U that. There was nothing new to brim out with relation to the killing ai wi did it. He did not think it any offa.1 talk with her on the way down on dear and he did so. It did not occur hi that he would be entitled to be abulfc that. Is he to be abused for not tes via on the coroner’s inquest, when he 'sn called to testify ? The coroner’s ]Ur is not the trial of a case ; it is to as rUi the cause of the death. The causef H death being proven, he was not ca d < this subject. Is he to be abused fohal He had “not told anybody down> <1 trial.” Well, that is to his credit. Ti is contrary to their theory. If the T 15S jtrpose m this conversation, he imme- 7 Avould have told it; he did not see ,".ng to tell of, because it was merely ration of what she had said before, ischarge of his duty did not require l treated it as a casual conversation, (d not care about it until the District iiey happened to learn he had accom- t her from the station house to head- •i - s ; and desiring to get such infor- ii on the case before the trial as he du the discharge of his duty, he sent 1m and enquired of him. Then for ii t time he stated this conversation, he anything in that for which to u|collect it ? A. Well, I asked her how cafe to shoot Mr. Watson. She said he li ed her and called her vile names ; that soioad threatened to discharge her the day Ii she say anything about the shooting ? beiid she was going out on the landing Mj Watson was out on the landing ; he d If abusive names, and she shot him. ■ b she say anything about the num- >f fnes ? A. I asked her the number of ■; lie said only once. dis the testimony. All these state- is ,re -made after this occurrence, d you want any further evidence that 'c an knew what she was doing; had % and portrayed that motive in I'gthe question? it, jpntlemen, after the long and elo- d »pch on the part of the counsel to ‘ mi have listened, I cannot in con- Me ty much more to you in this case. ve ‘ deavored, in the honest discharge y uty to lay before you its facts. ■ e i disposition, even had I the abili- 1 hjulge in eloquent apostrophies on cal rinciples. I have no desire to al fyour sympathies against the real- dor nate young woman. I shall have iiirgl my duty when I shall have faith- rei >wed the facts and the principles hie the prosecution asks conviction. V I said to you in the opening that I saw noth¬ ing in the facts which I then knew which warranted me in reading any law to you except the law of justifiable homicide, ex¬ cusable homicide, or murder. I said to you then that if during the trial any facts or circumstances developed which made it essential that you should understand the other branches of homicide, they would be read to you by one or the other counsel and therefore did not read to you what constituted manslaughter. They made the issue; and are accepted. What does the counsel mean? Does he suppose the prose¬ cution, represented by the District Attor¬ ney, came into this Court as into an amphi¬ theatre for conflict with him? Does he sup¬ pose opposing counsel comes here like two athletes to wrestle ? If any such principle as this actuates him it does not me. If it is pos¬ sible under the law that there is a reasona¬ ble doubt which would lessen the offense, you know no such feeling will prevent me from stating it to the jury. Occupying the position I do I could not sleep to night if I were influenced by any such remark. Now, gentlemen, there is one phase of this case, which I don’t believe in; and if you do, it changes the entire nature of the case. Manslaughter in the third degree is the killing of a human being by another, without justifiable or excusable cause, in the heat of passion, without an intent to kill. If it be true that this woman was in sound mind and memory; and if it be equally true that she, as she swears, did not intend to kill Watson, but used-’a dead¬ ly weapon which resulted in his death, and she did it under the heat of passion, pro¬ duced by provocation not sufficient to justify or excuse her under the law, then she can be convicted of manslaughter in the third degree. I do not ask such a con¬ viction on the part of the people. I be¬ lieve, and I have a right as a public officer to express the belief, that the story told by her is not credible. If you think other¬ wise, however, that there are facts in the case upon which you can conscientiously act, and ought to act, it is not [for me or anybody else to gain say it. You are here 154 to do substantial justice utidef the law. If you think there are any circumstances in the transaction which warrant you in look¬ ing leniently upon it, it is not for me to gainsay your judgment in this respect. The trial is between the prisoner on one side and the people on the other. The counsel have now no further voice. You have taken an oath, which is the chain which connects you with the Throne above. Then you will render a verdict just and true, according to the testimony in the case. When you shall do that conscien¬ tiously it will become no man to gainsay it; and you will go to your homes at night after the tedious trial and will retire to your pillows feeling justified to yourselves and it will become no man to question you. There is only one thing I ask you to consider. If you establish the principle by your verdict that mere adultery between wo persons justifies the killing of one by he other, if you establish the principle here is no statute of limitations to that, that it may run on to three long years, if you establish by your verdict the princi¬ ple that any woman, single or married, liv¬ ing adulterously with a man two or three years, may, when she tires of him, or from any other motive, take his life, the re¬ sponsibility will be with you: and if you can take that responsibility satisfactorily to yourselves it is not for me to complain of you. But, gentlemen, I ask you to de¬ cide this case not on sympathetic princi¬ ples. It will not do to decide cases in Courts of justice on sympathy; it would strike a blow at the foundations of society. But if it is to be so decided, shall all the sympathy that swells our bosoms be ^ for the guilty? Is there no ground o m pathy except for the adulteress a: fa her who is charged with the murder be paramour? Is the innocent widow, th af innocent party of the three so nearh ite ested in this case, to have no sympath; it no tears to be shed on her behalf A gathers around her her little fan '$ remind them they are fatherless, and 4 thinks of that husband who, whatev ei* he was, was a kind and loving busbil her, but is now in his untimely aw Lonely and desolate she retires aii^l only to think and weep over years g< > bgi When she goes to church, as she is tomed to do, and sits down in tl a* and looks at the minister who acen her loneliness and desolation, anciJ calming and chastening influences («| ion come over her, how is she 1 M when she reads in this trial that tl sn pathy of men is only for the aduMB Her only relief will be in that In though it affords consolation for the pa ant adulteress, yet it affords mut ms. comfort to the innocent. Is she ot w be thought of in connection with tl tM If there is to be sympathy shall it oti for the iunocent widow who has b a raged in a double loss? Is there t be sympathy for the daughter, fifleet t ®j teen years of age, left fatherless, a nfl out her natural .protector. And tl t N other innocent children—what ite k their future? I don’t ask you to ts» things into consideration; but imp thy is to determine this case I aslrf™ gentlemen, that your sympathy out not to the wicked and vicious on* 155 CHARGE OF THE COURT TO THE JURY. n men of the Jury : y the part of counsel much eloquent •rient, great forensic ability and pro- ■r legal knowledge have accompanied Lai of this case from its commence- nfco its close. Counsel in all things ,'elone their duty most faithfully, both te part of the defense and on the rtf the prosecution. And yet with the ia icense that accompanies trials of this cUnd necessarily accompanies them, dhas come into this case and much len said on both sides that is not ftjiate as bearing upon it, and should t ider any circumstances enter into ■ cisideration of the jury charged with itision. It is the duty of the Court, re re, after the arguments of the coun¬ t's been finally closed, at the final nit of the trial to call back the minds li jurors to a calm, dispassionate, rea- ; it; and just construction of the case >n Inch they are to decide, and parti¬ al in this the case on trial, when the oir is charged with the crime of wil- n rder. Jurors in such cases are, to ae stent, the custodians of the fate thi accused person. It is a question h tat person of life or death, and the 'sir is with the twelve jurors who sum to try the issue and render vemct according to the evidence. 1 re're, because of this high responsi¬ ble listing somewhat on the Court, and ayirpon the jurors in criminal cases, s t duty of the Court to say to the jury ‘Q ; case is about to be committed to ulnds, to discharge their minds from con derations foreign to the case, and to er i ictly and closely into its particular rite; lowhat is this case ? The accused is ced ipon trial, charged with the crime murder—the highest crime known he |;w. The fiat of the Deity is “ thou it d ; kiU,” and it is likewise the law in crv zed communities; and whoever transgresses or offends, jeopardizes his or her own life. The circumstances and fea¬ tures which have been developed in this case are peculiar, and distinguish it from many others of much celebrity. The per¬ son killed was a man in the prime of man¬ hood, in the full vigor of life, engaged in active business, mingliug with the busy world, having a home and a family. The accrrsed has all her life, and that not a very long one, from a period of about eight years of age, contributed by her own labor to her own support. In the year 1868 or thereabouts, she entered the employ¬ ment of the deceased, and so remained with some interruptions and intervals until January, 1872, and during this period the outward relations subsisting between them •was that of “ master and servant.” Isay “outward relations,” because it is claimed on her behalf, that another and a more intimate, a hidden, a secret, a criminal relation also subsisted between them dur¬ ing almost the entire period. Under these circumstances, and on the 22d of last January, iu this county, the life of Watson, the deceased, was taken, and the accused stands at the bar of this Court charged with being his murderess. Just turned her eighteenth year, at a pe¬ riod in life when in her sex we always hope to find innocence and simpl.city, those traits which always grace girlhood and budding womanhood, on the very thresh¬ old of her life she is placed on trial as a. criminal, under a most grave and serious charge ; and it is in these respects I say that this case presents characteristics which are not ordinarily found even in cases of great celebrity. I do not propose in this case, gentlemen, to go over the facts or to compare the evidence, or to recapitu¬ late or comment upon it, save so far as may be necessary to apply to it some fea¬ tures of law governing the case to which your attention will be directed by myself. The duty of reviewing the testimony has 156 beeD so ably and fully discharged by coun¬ sel that it is not the duty of the Court to allude any further to the evidence than may seem necessary to make the charge itself the better understood. It is your great prerogative and your duty, if you so choose, in the jury room, to take up every part of this testimony piecemeal, and to dissect and analyze it, and compare it, and to such consideration at your hands the Court intends to leave it. With re¬ spect to the law it is the duty of the Court to say to you that all persons are held in¬ nocent until proven guilty. It is conceded that all guilty should escape rather than that one innocent person should sutler. Such is the humanity of the law. In this case the prosecution has a certain duty to perform. It must establish the killing of Watson by violence as alleged in the indictment. It must show that the accused committed the act which occasioned his death, and it must adduce from the facts and circum¬ stances gathered from the case that she in¬ tended to kill him ; the intent to kill must be established to make out the offense in the highest degree—that is, the offense of wilful murder. And it must appear, either by ordinary presumption or by positive proof, that the prisoner charged with this crime was a re¬ sponsible being at the time of its commis¬ sion. All these are elements to be made out before the party charged with the crime can be called upon to enter a defense. As to the intent, it is an emotion of the mind, and it is established by words or by outward acts ; and a person is held in law to intend to do that which he does, and to intend the natural consequences of the act. Now here, on this question of intent to kill, provided it be established that the accused did discharge this weapon at Wat¬ son, her intent to kill rests upon grounds which may be briefly stated as follows : First, a deadly weapon provided; second, the discharge of it at a vital part, and al¬ most immediate death ensuing. These facts are usually sufficient to demonstrate that the intent to kill accompanied the act, until explained away by the j who committed the act. If this intei formed immediately before the conur of the act, or even at the very time stinking of the blow, or the pulling i trigger, it is of as much force as if existed for a much longer period. The prosecution, when they resti case, claimed they had made out t essential elements of the offense accused. And the Court says now, as it sail hti the prosecution rested, in responsi motion on the part of the defens t there was at that time sufficient ev to send the question of the prisoner or innocence to the jury. When th cution rested the defense was enttrei ? and here is introduced the chief el the engrossing topic, the subject of est interest, around which the op forces have gathered and struggle contested the question of guilt o u» cence. The prisoner is entitled to; as many defenses as may seem adviifl herself or her counsel; and onhei;lfl more than one defense is, as I und M it, presented to the Court. First has a right to claim that the offens a full extent has not been alequatei; lished by sufficient proof, and tostj she chooses, on that ground. If, in honest judgment, guided by coiii and governed by reason, a sufficie has not been made out by the prosd then you need not resort to any tei on the part of the defense for her ei! help you will keep your oath. It ie ftty of the Court here to give a 1 i caution. The case has excited f pblic attention, and comment, both udyide, is visited upon it, and proba- p( all necessarily connected with it. oil part, you ought to see to it that :• mpathy on one side or passion or lii on the other, shall not influence re lict. Public clamor for or against ’cosed must not, will not, shall not n( your deliberations in the jury a > or shall influence the Court, I fs a|tny stage of the case. If in your lQe there should be a verdict of itti it is your duty to say so; if of y, i is your duty equally to say so, and be: discharge your obligations, leav- the msequences upon those who have ked hem and where they are placed by M>f the land. t seek secrecy in the commission o: rii as those who are in posession of tkei aa ties. ” He says that ‘ ‘ subsequent < idt of the prisoner where there is no < ice ment and no attempts at conceahn t« no flight, are indicative of insanity 1 says: “The tenor of the previomiff the person charged with the offens »bi that offense is contrary to the who tq of that life in an indication of in litj and as he doubts the doctrine o nan transiloria and yet he gives these i iod cations that may exist in insanity.* of a prisoner charged with crime. Now, on the other hand, Dr. Jaisw tended in testifying as an experl "tl scientific investigation by learne me particularly in the Old World, have veki ed a phase not before believed ehf known as mania transitoria or tepfl^ insanity.” He says: “ Of course periods of incubation. It does not mmi in a moment and then cease at t! <* mission of the act;” and the insaty* be determined by some indicia iihe| mediately previous conduct of tl F* who is its subject or object. Th is ( chief defense in the case and in to it I shall not detain you long. 1 however, to give you instructio may lead to an intelligent cone.'ion your minds, because some of tl men have had their doubts, and t h 1 to be expected that those who ® made the subject a study can h than those who have. I refer tosoeoff indicia laid down by Dr. Jarvis ivlflfl temporary insanity. He quotepwl 159 si many of them have been named :cnsel for the defense. Of mania ■ina, he says: in form of mental disorder which sud- r pears iu persons previously sound or a iosed to be insane in mind. It has a (ration and suddenly disappears. He ; is not a new doctrine, but has been it q France and G rmany for many I the managers of the insane and by rsm the c e topics. It is recognized by >res on the subject in Great Britain; is t by the courts in Europe in the man- ?tand disposition of persons committing vlh would otherwise have been consid¬ ers, and who otherwise would have limed to death on the scaffold. w'hat does he state as indicia, from a .e juror, or court, or observer can dto a conscientious conclusion as e ate of mind of the person charged tl crime at the time of its commis- ? le says: incjan outbreak in a person accustomed ml, quiet life, a sudden outbreak of cration, calmness after the act, ab- c adequate motive, no subsequent re- 3, b consciousness or. recollection of >ff<93e, some extraordinarily disturbing ■ me functional disturbance, being oress iuternal in its features, and he- rj redisposition. w.jentlemen, these are two authori- lu will see that in many things a£3e as to the indications which are ■te to be found, and which, when d, ould be relied on in determining me ion of sanity or insanity by a per- chiged with crime. I do not feel d necessary to go farther in that ■ h : the case, although I shall state i me other matters briefly. hoi here a compilation of cases in h e has been suddenly taken—of lamjby the wife, of wife by the hus- - < parent by child—noted cases 'g ie past twenty years; some of 1 ii France, some of them in Ger- y. a l in other parts of the Old World, e n motive could be ascribed for the and 'here the person, because of the dty f the offense, would undoubtedly sa red death unless the doctors of nini had been listened to by the court jur the time they retired to the close, ten for acquittal and two for manslaughter in the third degree, the said two being Jurors Allen and Tapscott.