house several times. "When father would
go into the storo and huy anything, h
would not Kant to charge him for it; he
gave father clothes, and a great many
things. I was to get $12 per month, and
board and sleep at home; afterwards,
when 1 went to the store, Alexander
Marbourer, hia partner, said I could not
board at home ; Jordan then paid I should
board at Alexander's, slep in the store,
and get 88 per month.
Croes examined. Father is charged
irith an account in their store. This
witness was on the stand about one hour,
and underwent a close examination.
. S. M. Cornell, sworn : Am a brother-in-law
of prisoner; was acquainted with
Marbourg ; met him at house of prisoner
on one occasion.
John Keller, sworn : Ilare bren a clerk
in Marbourg'? store for about a year;
knew the prisoucr ; he and my employer
appeared to be very sociable together; the
prisoner was in the store often.
Cross examined : My employer was nat
urally very sociable.
William Orr was next sworn, but noth
ing important elicited from his testimony.
Mary Dclaney, sworn : The counsellor
defense proposed to pTove by this witness
and others that the wife of prisoner and
deceased had been discovered in the very
act of adultery at the house of Moore,
that thev were disturbed in a criminal
connection on a hill above Johnstown,
and that they had committed adultery in
hotels in sundry neighboring towns. The
prosecution objected to this as being ir
relevant to the case, on the plea that this
was not a trial for seduction or adultery.
The defence insisted that the admission of
the evidence was necessary to a proper
understanding of the state of mind under
which prisoner labored when he commit
ted the murder. Tii3 prosecution held
that to prove insanity was the province of
no witness, unless he be a surgeon, or one
who has given the subject his undivided
attention. Considerable discussion was
elicited, and lengthy arguments were made
by Messrs. Johnston and Scott on the part
oi defense, and by Kopelin and Foster for
prosecution. The Court adjourned at 6
o'clock, withholding its opinion on the
question until morning.
FOURTH DAY FRIDAY.
Court met at 9 o'clock, when his Honor
proceeded to lay down his opinion touch
ing the question which had been raised
the previous evening, lhe admission o
evidence permitting the defense to estab
iish adultery was overruled, but the Court
decided that any communication made to
the prisoner respecting the alleged crimi
nal conduct of his wife and deceased,
about or within any reasonable time before
the homicide, as tending to show the state
of mind under which he acted, was evi
dence, and should be received. Following
is his Honor's decision, in extenso :
Per Curiam Tatlob. P. J. : The offer is to
prove an act of adultery between the deceased
and the prisoner's wife in Oct. 1862, and
other acts of adultery at various times and
places afterwards, down till within ten day3
before the homicide ; and, alsOj that the
deceased attempted, at some time not stated,
to poison the prisoner ; and that ''the first
suspicion of these facts reached Moore the
prisoner, the Friday one week before the
killing ; that during that week he ate or slept
but little if any, and left his home in a state
of frenzy on his wife making a full confession
to him on the morning of the killing."
The criminal acts here offered to be proved,
ecparated from the conclusion of tVc offer,
would be plainly inadmissible. No one
would think of justifying a crime committed
vesterdny by the proof of another crime com
mitted a year, or month, or week ago. The
law of off set has no place on the criminal
calender. Every crime has its own penalty,
and every criminal is amenable to the law for
his own criminal acts, and has a right to a
trial according to the form3 of law. No in
dividual has the right to take the law into his
own hands and inflict its penalties, much less
to inflict such penalties as his passions may
dictate. No one will claim that the act of
adultery with a wife will justify the husband
in killing the adul'.erer. If the husband
found him in theact, and instantly killed him,
. there is, in the view of the law, such provo
cation as will reduce thekilling to manslaugh
ter; but, if the husband act upon information
received afterwards from anybody else, the
killing is murder ; and proof of the adultery
would not weigh feather, either to justify
or extenuate. This being the unquestionable
and unquestioned law, the offer to provo the
criminal acts specified, without more, would
be clearly inadmissable, and it would be the
duty of "the Court to reject it. The rules
of evidence in criminal, as well as civil cases
exclutfi evidence which has no legitimate
bearing upon any question involved in the
Issue, and when the only effect of admitting
it would be to mislead the jury.
But, it is argued that the door has been
opened for the admission of this otherwise
clearly irrelevant evidence, to explain the
rrincipal fact proven by the Commonwealth,
n proving the principal fact the homicide
it is true several of the witnesses of the
Commonwealth, uearly all of them, indeed,
did prove the prisoner's declaration at the
. t . . f i J f T 7 r r ' r
time, mat me aeccasea naa seaucea nis zrijc
tch.cn he was in the army fighting for his country.
Hut it is not to be overlooked here, that if the
prisoner had done the act without saying
anything, or assigning any reason for it, and
now here upon his trial, offered to prove that
the deceased had committed adultery with
his wife when he waa in the army, and that
he hd learned the fact after he returned, the
evidence could not be received either to
justify or extenuate ; and if offered for that
purpose, we would be bound to reject; His
counsel her would not think of proving bis
own delarni3i to that effect. But the
Commonwealth proved it far him, and he ie
entitled to the benefit of that evidence; anj
we doubt not he will have the benefit of all
the weight to which it is lairly entitled. It
cannot admit of a reponable doubt that he
acted, at the time, under the belief tkat what
be stated, as the reason of his condnci, wag
true. It docs not at all follow, however, that
he may mppleraent what the Commonwealth
was under the necessity of proTing as a part
rf bis conduct by proving himself, in addition,
what would otherwise be inadmissable. The
Commonwealth never thus forfeits her right
to objeet to irrelevant evidence offered by the
defence. The same may be said of the pris
oner's proven declarations, wheu he was
accusing the deceased of having seduced his
wife in his absence that the had confuted all.
The expression in its connection, is not at all
ambiguous or equivocal, and thepmoner has
the benefit of it.
The only reason that has occasioned any
hesitation is adopting this conclusion is that
a different practice seems to have prevailed
in some other cases. In that of bicfcles, J udge
Crawford, though under a different state of
facts, admitted evidence of adultery, princi
pally, however, on the ground which we
have just noticed that it seemed proper to
explain the evidence of the principal fact
and which, in ourview, is entirety unsatisfac
tory, at least in its application here. In the
case of Regina vs Fisher, 8 Carrington &
Payne, 345, evidence of a similar fact seems
to have been heard ; but in that and other
cases entitled to respect, it is believed the
facts were proven by the government, or no
objection raised, or the question not present
ed in the aspect it i3 new. After much seri
ous reflectioa upon the point, we are clear
and decided in our convictions that the first
part of the offer to prove antecedent crimin
al acts should not be received.
We are the more confirmed in our convic
tion of duty by several reflections which crowd
upon ua as this point is presented. Jo in
justice is done to the prisoner, as he has the
full benefit of any inference to which the law
entitles, him, since it cannot admit of a reas
onable doubt that he acted under a belief of
the truth cf what he asserted at the time of
the homicide, in justification of it; and that
is, and should be, equftlly available to him,
whether what he so believed was true or not.
The conduct of his wife and the deceased
could not have excited him to acts either of
malice or frenzy if he had not known of
them ; while if reported to him under .cir
cumstancesjfwhich led him to believe such
might be the effect, though the reports were
false. It is not what . they did, but his
knowledge and belief of it not their crim
inal conduct, but what was communicated to
him that operated upon his mind.
And it is the Effect which these facts had,
or may have had upon hie mind, which is the
point of inquiry. While this ruling, there
fore, does no imaginable injustice to the
prisoner, it is due to the Commonwealth,
which also has rights, and to other parties.
The admission of the offer would add to this
case, for the ostensible purpose of explaining
a fact unavoidably, but properly, proved as a
part of the res gestae, a half a dozen of trials
for adultery, and one for a conspiracy to
murder, with all the evidence to sustain and
defend, rebut and sur-rebut, without any
other effect than to divert attention from the
true issue, save to minister to a morbid pub
lie appetite for scandal, and to run what was
heralded in the papers at first as a great
tragedy, la the judicial investigation of it
into a farce. If the prisoner had prosecuted
the deceased for these alleged crimes, and
brought him into court to answer them,
instead of striking dojrn with his own hand,
the offered evidence would be pertinent, and
would be fully heard ; but it must occur to
any one that it would be scarcely jnst to the
memory of the deceased, infamous as he may
have been, to try him incidentally and unnec
essarily upon a half dozen or more charges,
after his lips have been sealed in death, and
when he is not here to defend or explain.
The admission of the evidence to explain
the principal fact, would, moreover, unnec
essarily open a wider field of proof, answer
and reply, and might affect injuriously still
oiher3 not on trial. It might, and probably
would, involve the question, if a previous
criminal intimacy were established, whether
it was a seduction, and. who was the seduced
or the seducer an investigation which could,
in onr judgement, serve no better purpose
than to minister to a depraved appetite for
scandal. We are thus sustained, finally, by
the reflection that, if we err in this ruling,
the prisoner can have our ruling reviewed,
and our error corrected on a bill of excep
tions. The first part of the offer, as to the extent
that it proposes to prove specific antecedent
criminal acts, is overruled ; but we admit the
conclusion of it, and will allow the prisoner
to prove any communication made to him
respecting the alleged criminal conduct of
his wife and the deceased, about or within
any reasonable time before the homicide.
This, as tending to show the state of mind
under which he acted. We do not agree
with the counsel of the Commonwealth in all
their view3 of the kind of evidence by which
a state of mind that would render him
wholly irresponsible, may be established.
But the evidence i3 only pertinent as tend
ing to show that. And we repeat here that
it was what was communicated what he
had heard, that only that could have been
bearing upon his mind. Proof of that, and
and of that only, could show the jury what
was present to him and influencing him to
excitement and action and that he has
a right to prove.
The following is the rule, in extenso, made
by the counsel for the defence, We attach
it for the benefit of our legal readers, aa a
matter of reference :
Defendant's counsel, the prosecution hav
ing proven the declarations of defendant at
the time of the occurrence, ("that Marbourg
had seduced hi3 wife when he was in the
army that he had ruined him and his family
that hia wife had made a clean breast of it
and told him everything") propose to prove
that in the latter part of October, 1862, while
he was in the army, the said Jordan Mar
bourg committed adultery with his wife, inhi3
(Moore's) own house and in his own bed
that Marbourg offered ro bribe the witness to
silence1 that an adulterous intercourse be
tween them was kept up from that time till
about ten days before Marbourg's death
that criminal conduct and adultery was com
mitted at the house of Adam Pharr, in Johns
town ; at Greensbnrg; at the Mansion Ilouse,
Farmers' Inn, and Red Lion Hotel, in Pitts
burg ; at the Hotel of Mr. ninchman in
Mt. Plcsant at the house of Isaac Crawford
in Ebensburg, and elsewhere that criminal
intercourse was prevented by discovery on a
hill near Johnstown that poison was giren
by Marbourg to be administered to Moore
shortJy before his death that the first sus
picion of these facts reachedMoore on Friday,
one week before thekilling that during that
week be ate and slept but little, if any, and
left his house in a state of frenzy when his
wife made a full confession to him on the
Defendant's counsel propose to prove by
the witness that Marbourg requested him to
write to his father, the defendant, stating
that lie desired bim to remain in the army
a short time before his return from the nine
month' serrice add that he did so write in
pursuance thereof. lie returned the 29th of
May, 1863.
Objected to. Objection sustained, and the
counsel for the prisoner excepts, and a bill
of exception is signed and sealed.
Geokoe Taylor.
Owing to a sudden indisposition of the
prisoner, who was taken with a severe
nervous attack, at this juncture Court was
compelled to adjourn until 5 o'clock. '
The attending physician gave it as his
opinion that it would endanger the pris
oner's life to bring him into Court in his
preeent condition.
5 P. M.: Court re assembled, when
defense proposed to prove that Marbourg
had atone time asked a lady to administer
poison to the prisoner, and afterwards
handed a package of medicine to another
lady, to be given to Mrs. Moore, for her
husband; that the lady had done this,
but that Mrs. M. threw the package in
the fire, remarking that it was poison.
After some discussion, it was considered
unnecessary to allow this evidence to be
produced.
Mr. John Geis, Sworn : Knew Moore
about 16 years; never heard anything
wronjr about his character. IN ever heard
him use vulgar or profane language.
Cross examined : I have known other
persons who never swore.
A number of witnesses were cailedwho
bore testimony to prisoner's good char
acter. Jacob Fend, sworn : It was proposed
to prove hereditary insanity in the prison
er by tliH witness ; prosecution objected,
on the ground that this would not affect
the prisoner's case ; but after some discus
sion Court overruled the objection. Am
acquainted with the two sisters and moth
er of the prisoner ; knew Jane for about
eight years; she was married about six
years before I left Stoystown, and had
some children ; she was married to Daniel
Delaney.
Cros3 examined : I do not know if I
could judge she was crazy. I had forgot
ten her until I was called up .here, and do
not remember much about her.
Miss Mary Delaney, sworn : Was livinjr
with the prisoner's family for some time
before the death of Marbourer; on the
Friday preceding his death. I told uncle
of the talk about aunt ;she was not pres
ent when I told him. Uncle called aunt
out on the porch, and talked to her about
it. He was very much excited from that
time until Marbourg's death, and neither
ate nor slept. The morning of the horn
icide, uncle was in aunt's room about an
hour or so before breakfast; after that he
paced the rootn and garden several times.
He didn't eat much at breakfast. After
breakfast I took a bowl of coffee to aunt's
room ;he came up and looked at her, and
then etarted off. She was sick from the
Friday preceding the murder.
Cross examined : She had had no doc
tor. 1 am a daughter ot the prisoner s
sister. This was the first time I spoke to
uncle of the reports ; he said he would
ask aunt about it. As far as I know, he
did not eat or sleep. He sat with the
family at meals, but did not cat much.
Court adjourned.
FIFTH DAY SATURDAY.
Court assembled at 9 o'clock, and case
resumed.
Mrs. llobert Pickworth, sworn : Moore
came to mother's house on the 5th of
February, to find out about the reports
concerning his wife ; he asked me if
had told his niece that Marbourg and his
wife were seen coming out of an alley
together ; I said I had. He said he would
trace the etory up, and if it was Dot cor
rect, he would thrash the authors, thoup
they were as high as the Allegheny
Mountains. I sent for Eve Koontz at
the time, as it was from her I had heard
the report. I told him he would find out
all from Mr. Kimmell.
Eve Kooutz, sworn : T went to Beam's
house that Friday that Moore was there,
and we had high words about the reports;
he was very angry; I got angry, too,
when he said if I was a man he would
slap my face; that the report was disgra
cing his family. I didn't give him any
satisfaction at all.
Mrs. Beam, eworn : Moore was at my
house on the Friday before the homicide,
to inquire about reports concerning his
wife and Jordan Marbourg. He was in a
dreadful rage ; his appearance and con
duct was not like his former self.
John Beam, sworn : Was in my house
at the time Moore was there. Eve Koontz
denied telling my daughter the report.
My daughter and Eve then had it for a
while, when Evo said she never would
tell auything about it. Moore wanted
the author of the report ; Eve said that
she'd die before she'd tell. He then said
that if she were a man he would whip her,
and lie wouldn't stop much and do it
anyhow. He and I left the house, and
he said that he would hunt up on whom
the blame rested, and he would whip
them until they , would not know them
eelves. He said that Marbourg was a
gei.tleman, and that he had a respectable
family. Moore was considered a leading
member in the Disciples' Church.
Levi B. Cohick, sworn : On the Satur
day previous to the homicide, the prisoner
called on me and asked me if I had ever
seen anything wrong between Marbourg
and his wife ; replied I had not, but that
he should see Mr. Kimmell about it.
Mary Dclaney, recalled : lam a mem
ber of the Disciples' church at Johnstown ;
Mr. and Mrs. Moore were also members.
The former attended regularly. He was
not at church the Sunday preceding the
homicide, but staid at home.
Valentine Louther, sworn : Am a mem
ber of the Disciples' church in Johnstown ;
Moore held the position of Elder in the
church ; he was very punctual in atten
dance, and appeared to be very zealous in
the cause of religion.
Levi B. Cohick, recalled : Saw Moore
on the Monday previous' to tho murder;
he came to me to talk about the reports
which were out ; he said he thought his
wife had been slandered, for she had been
sick for some time, and it was impossible
for such a thing to occur as .was imputed
to her, He said he had heard something
cf an interview she had had on Amisch hill,
to which vicinity she had gone for medi
etas. He said on Saturday that if it was
true about Marbourg, he could settle the
matter in a few minutes. On Monday he
said that it the report w;re true, he would
shoot him in one or two minutes. told
Marbourg he had belter keep out of the
prisoner s way.
Mr. Warden, sworn: lne prisoner
spoke to me in Kernville on the Monday
preceding the homicide, and said he
understood that I knew something about
Marbourg and his wife ; he wanted me to
tell him what it was. I told him that
another person and myself were out walk
ins? on a Sunday in July, 1863, on the
hill above Johnstown; that on our way
home we saw Marbourg on the road; that
when he saw us he jumped over the fence,
and went along peeping through the pa
lings around loders orchard; that he
seemed to be pretending to pick black
berries ; that I remarked to the man who
was with me, "there can't be women here
that Marbourg is after?" that he said ho
thought not; that we went on about a
dozen yards, when we saw a woman com
ing up the road; that when she saw us
she stopped, and after a short time turned
around and went back to ..Yoder's house;
that she talked to Yoder, and from the
fact of her pointing with her finger, that
I supposed she was inquiring the way;
that he pointed across the fields, and that
she started in that direction. Marbourg at
the same time going towards her; that we
went back, and that I crossed over the
field myself; that Marbourg then got on
the fence, and seeing me come that way,
beckoned her to go back, but that she did
not stop until she had got within speaking
distance of him ; that she then turned
back; that I went across to where she
was, and walked beside her for some time,
but that she did not notice me ; that at
length she looked up and said, "Mr. War
den, is that you ?" that I replied, "Yes,
Mrs. Moore, is that you V that she then
nalroil rrA if T liad upon hf-r enn on 7in nr
he had started out that morning, and if
not back by the time ctrarch was out, Ins
father would cowhide him, and that she
was hunting him ; that I told her it looked
lir1 trt sen Vo with tliot mon Af otaiii.
that she said, "You don't think I would
V WV( UV. If,... l.lbkt. Ul MVS W&A 1 ,
have anything to do with that old copper
head and secessionist, do you V that she
also said she had not spoken to him for
fourteen years, because he had got mad at
her for returning some butter to his store;
that she said she was then on her way to
Strayer's to get some tea, as she was not
well; that she wanted me to go with her;
that I told her to come back to town, that
she must not go with Marbourg that day ;
that she said when he motioned to her he
did not speak, but only was giving her to
understand that she could get nice black
berries over there ; that she begged me
for God's sake not to tell her husband of
what had occurred, as it would cause
separation between them, and between the
family of Marbourg; that she said she
would do anything for me if I wouldn't
tell; that the next morning she went to
Seigh's, and told Mrs. Seigh that the was
going to prosecute her (Mrs. S.'s) hus
band and myself for running after her in
the woods; that I told prisoner that if
his wife had only kept her mouth shut,
and had not gone and told women about
it, the thing would not have leaked out.
Cross examined : On the Sunday fol
lowing, the parties started out again ; Mrs.
Brenniman was along, and the sons of
Moore and Marbourg on horseback. A
thunderstorm drove them back.
Mr. Seigh, sworn : This testimony was
corroborative ot Warden's, with this addi
tion witness saw the wife of prisoner in
town the night that police officer Kimmell
saw her ; she went into a grocery near
Geis' store about 7 o'clock that evening.
Told prisoner that Warden aud myself
had intended dropping him a note to put
him ou his guard ; told him I would be
qualified to all this. He said it was -a
horrible thing, if true ; he appeared to be
very much excited at the time.
Capt. J. K. Hite, recalled : On the
Tuesday previous to the murder, the
prisoner came to my-house and asked mo
to go with him to Yoder's. In walking
out, he talked of separating from his wife ;
I said I did not like to advise him, but I
believed a separation was all his mind
could bear. At Yoder's, the young man
told us his story, confirming that of War
den. Prisoner said he would take his son
with lim and go into the army, giving
money to John to keep Mrs. Moore, for
she was still the mother of his son. He
then gave me some general advice upon
the evils of my course, and the necessity
to be prepared for death at all times. I
knew John, his brother, for & long time;
he became insane many years ago ; he
was 12 or 15 years older than the prison
er. I knew Philip, another brother ; he
was in the Mexican war, and although a
wild reckless fellow, I considered him in
sound mind. As far as Jane is concerned,
I do not consider her sane.
Cross examined : John was about 24
when he became insane ; it is alleged it
was on account of a girl.
David Yoder, sworn : This statement
was corroborative of that part in Warden's
testimony refering to witness.
T. R. Kimmell, recalled : On the Sun
day previous to tho homicide, Cohick
came to my house and said there was a
man down ptreet who wanted to see me ;
we started out, when Cohick said that 1
should go down to his stable, that Mar
bourg wanted to see me ; he said he was
offered a dollar for finding me ; that Mar
bourg wanted to book mo up in a meeting
to be had the next morning between Moore
and him, m regnrd to these reports; I
told Cohick that neither of them could
book me up in anything I had said.
When he got to the stable, Marbourg said
he would bfl d d if he was ever so anx
ious to see a man in his life before as he
was to seo me; I said he could see me
anytime. Ave went into the stable, and
sat'on the manger. At Marbourg's re
quest, I told him what I had stated to
Moore : he said he did not remember the
occurence, but I told him I did, very well ;
he asked, "Might we not have gone into
Pfarr's?" I said 1 did not know; he
then said if Cohick and I would settle
this thing, we should not lose anything by
it ; he wouldn't for $500 his family should
find it out : I said I wouldn't take back
any assertion I had made for either him
or Moore, or for any other person, we
then parted.
John Moore, recalled : On . Wednesday
prht, I went to the station to see father
come off the train ; spoke to him, but he
did not notice me until I caught hold of
him ; but he then turned and said, "Is
this you, John V He was looking very
weak. I slept with him that night, and
he was very restless. Tho night before
the occurrence he did not sleep at all ; I
could not sleep on account of the way he
acted ; he was up and down all the time,
aud pacing th 2 room ; about daylight he
went out, and I looked out of the window
and saw him pacing the garden in his
shirtsleeves; several times during the
night I asked him what wad wrong, and
he said we were ruined forever. About
G o'clock I went to work.
William Orr, re-called : Saw on the day
previous to the killing Moore at the Scott
House ; his distracted appearance attracted
my attention.
A. J. Hawes, sworn : Moore came to
me on Thursday evening, and asked me
for a horse; he appeared in great
trouble ; stated that while he was in the
service of the:ountry, his family had been
ruined and his peace of mind destroyed,
and he wanted to search out the facts of
the case whether his wife and Marbourg
had slept together ; if he ascertained it to
be a fact, the stigma should follow Mar
a - - ' VW
boure wherever he should co. lie in-
quired if it was so that I had seen Mar
bourg and his wife in an oyster saloon ;
I replied that it was so. He told me
Mrs. Marbourg had 6ent for him and told
him that while he had but one child, she
had ten children, and to try and bear the
disgrace, as she was trying to do. He
also said Mrs. Marbo-urs wa3 a lady, and
he felt sorry for her.
A number of witnesses were examined
as to tbe previous good character of the
prisoner, anions them associate Judse
Easly and opposing counsel Kopelin and
Potts. They all united in placing his
character above reproach previous to the
murder.
Cvrus Reilly, sworn : Knew John
Moore, brother of the prisoner ; he was
insane.
A number of witnesses were.examined
touching the subject of insanity among the
connections of the prisoner, who testified
that a portion of said connections are or
had been insane.
Dr. Bunn, sworn : Was called to see
the prisoner on Thursday last subse
quent to his sudden illness in the Court
House. He. wai unaware of anything
transpiring about him ; was wild and en
tirely furious, acting like a man who had
mania a potu. lie was laboring under
a nervous prostration brought about by
constant nervous excitement:
Sheriff Buck, sworn : When the pris
oner was taken to jail, Thursday evening,
he became crazy, crying that somebody
was going to kill him. I took Dr. Bunn
to see him. Sometimes he would call out
that I Vfas his best friend. He called for
hii son and although he was there, he did
not recognize him.. He tore npen his
shirt, and pointing to his bosom, said,
"look at tho blood." Before going to
sleep, he cried out "by God there is a lot
of devils down there !" He has eaten
but little since he came to jail unjil last
evening.
Defence alosed at 4.20.
REBUTTING TESTIMONY.
Alex. Marbourg, sworn : Was in part
nership with deceased ; Mrs. Moore offer
ed her son to me to take into the store ; I
took him on trial, on condition that if I
liked him I was "to give him 100 per
year. The boy did not answer my pur
pose very well. Boots and shoes, aod
material for clothes are charged to the
boy on book. John asked me once to go
and take dinner with him ; hut did not go.
Cross examined : I'have not assisted
the prosecution with my own means.
At 4.45 the Commonwealth closed and
Court adjourned until Monday at2 o'clock.
SIXTH DAY MONDAY.
Pursuant to adjournment, Court con
vened at 2 o'clock, when Gen. James
Potts proceeded to address tho jury on
behalf of the Commonwealth. He com
menced by detailing to the jurors the
solemn duty they were called upon to
perform to determine the guilt or inno
cence of a fellow man charged with the
awful crime of murder. After these pre
liminary observations, he gave a lengthy
definition of the crime of murder, citing
a number of authorities on the subject.
The entire evidence on the part of the
prosecution was then read and very fully
reviewed. The General occupied nearly
six hours in the delivery of his argument.
Court adjourned at 8 o'clock.
SEVENTH DAY TUESDAY.
Court assembled at 8.30. The argu
ment on the part of the Commonwealth
was resumed by Gen. Henry D. Foster,
of Greensburg. After tho extended re
marks of his able colleague tho evening
previous, he did not consider it neoessary
to enter into an elaborate review of the
case, but strove to impress upon the mindj
of the jury that they must render a ver.
diet in accordance with the evident
without fear, favor, or affection, irregard!
less of public sentiment. It is the funda
mental principle of all governments thai
criminals must not be permitted to go
unwhipt of justice. The public safely
requires this, and when we become an.
mindful of the fact, the first element
toward the overthrow of any government
- i j j rru 1 iu "
are luirouucru. jliib iaw ia iuu criterion by
which the guilt and punishment of
trespasser of tho law are to bo estab
lished ; the prisoner could not be justified
by God or man in taking unto himself the
province of judge and jury, and slaying
his victim. Gen. Foster spoke one Lour
and a half.
At 10.15, the argument for the defene.
was taken up by R. L. Johnston, Esq.
This gentleman drew a most beautiful
and touching word-picture of the felicity
reigning in the cottage of the prisoner
until his return from the army, when
reports of a polluted bed and a dishonored
wife began to reach his unwilling ears,
and, crazed and heart-broken, he commit,
ted the deed for which he is now on trial.
He then ably reviewed the evidence for
the defence, and, after various scriptural
quotations bearing upon cases of adultery
and the punishment which usually attend
ed them, he closed his remarks at 4.30,
after a speech of four hours length.
Daniel M'Laughlin, Esq., continued tba
argument for the defence in a speech
occupying over two hours in the delivery.
He reviewed the evidence fully.
Court adjourned at 7 o'clock P. M.
EIGHTH DAY WEDNESDAY.
Court met at the usual hour, and tha
argument for the defence resumed by
si m -1 1 1 it. t
killings vx. tnuus, q. ue spoo
He
in an eloquent
strain for
tne space
cf
half an hour.
Hon. Jno. Scott, of Huntingdon, took
up the closing argument for the defence,
at 9.25. He said to the jury that if the
prisoner were a man who was hardened
ia iniquity, he might apologise for occu
pying their time, after the lengthy argu
ments ot the counsel who preceded him,
but it had been proven that, from infancy
up, his walk and conversation had alwayi
been influenced by the most conscientious -and
upright motives. In introducing tha
authorities upon which the laws iu regard
to the punishment attaching to cauaca of
this kind are based, he referred to the days
of Charles It, the king of England, of
whom it had been remarked "lie never
said a foolish thing, nor did a wise one."
In the days of this dissolute monarch,
there miht have been seen in the dark
alleys around Drury Lane theatre, a pros
titute, who sold her charms of person in
like manner as she sold her oranges. Sha
was taken from the alley and placed upon
the boards of the theatre, when a noble
man, attracted by her beauty, bought hor
for a price, and sold her to the King, Tho
lived with her in open adultery, ustil il
became notorious that Nell Gwynue, tha
adulteress, the mistress of a King, mada
the ministers, the courtsand the judges who
formed tho laws which bear up m this very
case, and which, be it said, have never
yet met with a response from any jury
box. In speakinir of the crime of adul
tery, he said that the man who attacked
the chastity of our wives souqrht to blight
our very homes. The convict upon tha
gallows, 'mid all the record of his crime?,
looks back upon one green spot in li'-
memory, and that one spot is home, li
it any wonder that when that home U
invaded, reason totters upon her throne
that the picture of an uufaithful wife.
and a treacherous friend, comiocr full
unon the iniud. works madness in tbe
brain, and a deed is committed which in
cooler moments would not have transpired!
The undisturbed and tranouil stream 0t
the prisoner's life was rudely turned from
iijj course, auu reasvu luiicivn vu
throne when he became convinced of ki
wife's faithlessness. If there was ever
a scene which might arrest the poet's eya
or painter's pencil, it was when tbe
wronged wife of Marbourg Old the in
jured prisoner came face to face. Hr
wailing cry was that he might bear his
cross, for she had the greater burden sba
had nine children whilst ho had but one
She forgot that the damning record oi'bcr
husband's crime would not attach to hfr
or her children, but it kouII follow tt
prisoner in waking thoughts and sleepi
dreams, that the knowledge of
infidelity could never depart from Jjin
Step by step the evidence was reviewed ;
thrilling picture of blighted hopes sno
mournful tale of a seared and broken heart
were narrated, until every person pr
was held spell-bound by his matchless orS'5
ry. He said to the jury in conclusion tt
it recked but littlo how their verdict
given, for if they acquitted the prisoner,
he would go forth a broken, useless tbiV
with hope and pcaco dead withia ni
still he knew they would send him 7
to the world with at least one "tis.acw
that of knowing himself a man w
motives had beon vindicated. .
This argument was spoken of as v
fully equal to that of Brady in the
brated Sickles tragedy. It occupiel tare
hours in the delivering.
The closing argument, for the P. '
tion, was delivered by A. Kopelin,
Ha opened by reciting in an ilDPfe9Stllst
manner the Lord's Prayer. VitQ. j
cool deliberation for which he is so j J
celebrated, ho then proceeded to con
the arguments of the counsel for dcte
He divided his argument into two pn j
to wit, the justification of the killinfi,
the insanity of the prisoner when h e
mitted tha murder tho Pleas.8.e rtrd
I. .1 i.ii ,1 hef
to the first point, he insisted there ecu
the counsel for the detense. - $