|
17
slaughter? Had the counsel forgotten that in all killing malice was
presumed unless there was something tending to qualify the crime ?
Substantially there has never been a departure from the rule thus
laid down in Blackstone, " for all homicide is presumed to be mali-
cious until the contrary appeareth in evidence." There was no ev-
idence in the case; save from the Professor's admission, that himself
and Dr. Parkman ever came, toggether. There was no circumstance
to show the probability of a quarrel. Their client's statement had
alway been, He went out after I paid him the money.
If in a charge for murder there are any circumstances of acci-
dent, necessity, or infirmity of which the prisoner would avail him-
self in excuse or extenuation, they ought to be proved by the pris-
oner in his defence, unless they arise out of the evidence produced
against him. In the case at bar, the prisoner could prove no excu-
sing or extenuating circumstances from which the manslaughter was
to be inferred, for no one witnessed the interview. They did not
arise out of the evidence for the same reason. Thus we say that
in law as well as in views of expediency, the dwelling on manslaugh-
ter was an error.
The course of the counsel on the, defence was very plain. He is
innocent of the homicide; should have been their cry froqi first to
last; and as well that his position in the community, his conduct
with his family, and his veracity, all forbid the suspicion. That
he was the victim of a conspiracy, and knowing no more of those
piecemeal remains than any of the jury.
And yet here was a counsel debating the question of man-
slaughter, and the various shades of homicide ! A stranger to thg
trial, taking up the speech, would naturally have inquired, what
were the circumstances of the quarrel ; what induced the heat of
blood ; what was the nature of the sudden provocation in evi-
dence ?
Says the counsel, speaking of the shades of malice, " The line
is often a nice one, and, indeed, sometimes faded into shadow. But
it was important to keep the line steadily in view, for death was on
one side of it. It was not to be lost sight of in any step of this
trial!!! The idea of sudden and great provocation was to be
constantly kept in view."
When such an issue was raised, we wonder the congregated bar
did not insist upon an instant withdrawal of Mr. Sohier from the
case. He was addressing men who were not possessed of the
keenest logical minds. He was admitting to them, in debating this
question of manslaughter, that there was a possibility of Dr. Web-
2
|
