|
64
the homicice from murder to manslaughter. It is understood that if a
homicide is committed it will be consid-
ered murder until it is proved to be manslaughter-the question then is if a
homicide occurs in this case.
If Prof. W. took the life of Dr. P. did it occur under such extenuating
circumstances as would reduce the
crime from murder to manslaughter ? Now, Gentlemen, you will receive the
direction of the Court what it is neces
sary for the Government to prove in order to make out a case of
manslaughter, without which the charge of murder
could not be entertained. I do not precisely understand may ?t please the
Court. what is meant by manslaughter
viewed in the light of the counsel for the Gov't. I don't understand that
it devolves upon the defence to show that
In a case of voluntary homicide there was not premeditation. Gentlemen, on
the question whether the homi.
cide was murder or manslaughter, if you ask the question it' Dr. Parkman
came to his?death by the hands of Prof.
Webster, that he killed him by design, then the. law implies malice, or
malice aforethought, accompanied with
the killing by design. The use of a deadly weapon indicates a design and
purpose to accomplish such an act; but,
gentlemen, in determining these questions the Jury are to look at all the
evidence and see under what circumstances
the homicide was perpetrated; and if it appear to the Jury, by fair and
proper inference, that the homicide was not
committed but under the extenuating circumstances of provocation or sudden
combat between the parties, then
the crime was manslaughter. I suppose, gentlemen of the Jury, that the
Government mean to show that there is
evidence in this case of express malice. t understand perfectly well how
this is alleged to have taken place, and
therefore before I go into the particular circumstances of the case. must
come to this fact; that the Government
say there is malice premeditated, that is to say, that Dr. Webster had
;design to kill Dr. Parkman before he
went into the College that morning ; this is the particular statement of
the Government; that Doctor W.
planned this murder and conceived the means of seducing Doctor P. to the
College by false repesentations.
Doctor W, states that on Friday, the 23d November; Dr. P. met him and was
invited to the College there to ac,
eomplish a particular piece of Lbusiness, namely, that Dr. P. should bring
to his place certain notes, and he should
there receive certain money, and Dr. W. states that the appointment took
place and the transaction occurred;
that Doctor P. did come there with his papers; that the bu>iness was
transacted between them and they separated.
The Government say that this transacjion did not take place ; that Webster
did not pay this money,
and then they ask you to conclude that this evidence is, that he seduced
him. It becomes.itben quite necessary
to look at the evidence which the Government have adduced upon this matter.
They have called Mr Pettee,
who sold tickets for Dr. Webater's course of lectures and have Shown you
that money was paid by Pette to Web-
ster, and then they have shown the deposits in the bank following the
payment of Mr Pette. They attempt to
show that the funds which Dr. W ebster received from the students were
disposed of in such a manner that he had
none of them to pay Dr. Parkman's bills. The evidence seems to me to be so
satisfying that I shall not attempt to
say more than a few words upon it.
Then, gentlemen, the Government have called after evidence, Mr. Henchman,
who testifies, that on the morning
of this same day, 2d of November, Dr. W. drew a check for $0. He stated
that he had funds in the bank at the
time the check was drawn, and that he might draw again. Well, gentlemen,
there is no doubt as to the fact that Dr,
W: wanted this money for his daily use. and that he was in the habit of
depositing money for that purpose,and as he
wished it, he drew it out. The funds were drawn out from time to time in
small checks; then they called a witness
to show that he had sent a small bill to him, and that Dr. W. wrote bank
that he would pay it as soon as he received
it arom the sale of his tickets; but you see that he wanted the money for
the support of his family-that is
to say the money that he was earning from time to time, and which may be
called support money; we can see that
Dr W. wanted money, and was in the habit of drawing weekly from the bank
for .the purpose of using it in his
own family. W e have shown you that Dr. W. had not crime enough in his
heart to perpetrate such a horrid
deed as is charged against him. You know that Dr. W. was a debtor, and that
Dr. P. was a creditor. You know
that Dr. P. had made up his mind resolutely about his debtor, and lie knew
that if Dr. P., threw out any allu
lions to the subject that it would have touched him to the quick. The
property of Prof. Webster was mort.
gaged to Dr. Parkman, and you know this mortgage was sold to R. G. Shaw by
Prof. Webster, and he thought
that he could vindicate himself at a future day as he did afterwards in a
letter to Mr. Shaw, but
which unfortunately does not now survive. Webster knew what he was to meet
with when Dr. P. came. hen
a man, enjoying the station of Dr. W., and living in the expensive style he
did, is called upon to pay a considers.
me sum of money, beyond his means, e must strengthen himself as much as he
can. Now, if you will examine his
books, you will find that $190 were paid by Mr. Pette to Prof. W. about the
middle of November, and that $160 o[
it were deposited in the Charles River Bank. All the money which was
received from the sale of his tickets for
the medical course, the balance of $40, was saved out, and put with the
claim of Dr. P, for the day of payment;
alllie hadto do was to put himself in a situation so as tomeet this claim.
Remember, gentlemen, two circum-
stanees-Dr. W. says he 'paid $480 to Dr. Parkman of which sum $100 was on
the New England Bank.
[The learned counsel then referred to the matter of the $20 bill which had
been offered the toll man on the Cam.
bridge Bridge to take out a toll of one cent, and dwelt with some force
upon the probability th# this bill was
one of those Dr- W. had paid Dr. P.]
It had been stated that the Professor did not recognize the note, but this
was no evidence that it was not one of
those which he had paid Dr. Parkmad. He had said that the money came from
the students; bat the idea was that
it was not the entire sum received in that way, but $ considerable portion
of it ; he could not tell, because
he could 'not recognize the sources from which he obtained it. Now,
continued the council, if you all
look at the small note of $483.64, and see how Jtis made up by savings, you
will see how he paid
Dr. P. more than was due.
[After a general review of the evidence of a financial nature adduced in
the case, the learned gentleman con.
tinued:]
Now I think that tfere is strong corroborating testimony that there were
business transactions on Friday,
Nov. ii, between these parties, Parkman the creditor, and Webster the
debtor; the former insisted on having it
paid at ll events, and W. knew this, and had to be prepared for it. It is
also proved that ho did receive money
from the New England Bank-that business transactions did take place in that
College-that Dr. P. did take the
papers down to that College. Now, gentlemen, I hold that in this state of
facts, that although this matter
is not fully explained, yet I think the explanation is sufcient to deny the
inference that Dr. Webster seduced DrI
Parkman to the College and murdered him. I put it to you, gentlemen, if it
is reasonable that a man of Professor
Webster's standing in life should sit down and deliberately chalk out the
way to kill a man. If this inference be
correct, the charge of malice aforethought could not bemade out.
The Court here adjourned until half past 3 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Continuation of Mr. Merrick's Argument for the Defence.
Gentlemen : I now call your attention to the circumstances which plainly
shew the character of the tranw_
tion, namely, the death of Dr. Parkman. You will perceive, gentlemen, that
that principally relies upon circum-
stances, and that there is not now living a human voice that can relate it,
and to this conclusion, Gentlemen, we
must come Then you are the judges of the facts, and in this instance, and
in every instance of the kind, you
are the judges of the circumstances, and the evidence of circumstances from
inferences which are deducible from
these circumstantial facts, having reference to all kinds of murder. What
the relations of these parties have been,
you have already heard statements made. You know that for a long period of
time Professor Webster has been
in debt. You know that Dr. Parkman lent him move . You know what the
consequences of these acts of
the lending the money had been. You know he pursue him by 'acts of
denunciation and injustice; and that Dr
i
|
