|
131
I come, then, Gentlemen, to state what we conceive to be the rules
of law applicable to the manner in which the crime shall be charged ;
that is, the rules of law applicable to the indictment.
In examining, in criminal cases, it is essential that the Jury should
bear in mind, not only what the rules are defining the offence charged,
but they should bear in mind, particularly and strictly, what the va-
rious particulars of the offence are which is charged; not only what
the offence is, in general, but what the particulars of the offence are.
Gentlemen, it is to be borne in mind-and this is a rule of law which
is essential absolutely to the safety of every one-that it is a mat-
ter of no consequence how many crimes a man has committed, if
he has not committed the particular crime set forth in his indict-
ment. It is a matter of no consequence, if he has committed the
crime charged, if he has not committed it by the means charged. This
is the position which we take, and it is a rule of law intended for the
protection of the citizen ; and if it is broken in upon, the man has no
safety. If a man is to be tried for particulars of offence, or for an
offence in which the facts are erroneously set forth, no man can pro-
vide for his defence ; and therefore it is that no man shall be tried for
any offence, unless that offence is fully, substantially, plainly, formally,
set forth. Not only must the statement be full, but it must be plain,
so that every one shall understand it. Not only must it be substan-
-tially, but it must be formally, made. If this rule is departed from,
there is no safety for any one.
It is essential that we should examine this indictment, and it is es-
sential that we should understand precisely what it is that the Gov-
ernment undertake to charge the defendant with. What are the par-
ticulars of the offence which Professor Webster is now set at the
bar to answer? These particulars must be fully, plainly, substan-
tially, and formally, set forth ; and I must, therefore, ask your atten-
tion to the indictment.
This indictment contains four counts ; that is, it has set forth, in
four distinct forms, the charge, and the Government are at liberty to
prove any one. First, the allegation is, that the prisoner, Professor
Webster, killed Dr. Parkman by striking him with a knife. Second-
ly, that he killed him by striking him with a hammer. Thirdly, that
he killed him by striking him with his fists and his feet, and striking
him against the floor. Fourthly, that he killed him in some way,
or by some means, instruments, and weapons, to the Grand Jury un-
known.
Now, may it please the Court, and Gentlemen of the Jury, I must
ask your attention to the rules of law applicable to this indictment.
And I shall, in the first place, ask your attention to the rules of law,
as I conceive them to be applicable to the three first counts, which can
all be readily considered together.
In an indictment for murder, Gentlemen, it is an imperative rule,
that the means of death shall be accurately described. And when we
say that a thing is to be accurately described, we mean that the Gov-
ernment shall prove it as they have described it. They shall state
the means of death accurately; that is to say, their proof shall sus-
tain their statement of the means of death.
Now I ask your attention to another position. I understand it to
be a well-settled rule of law, that there are certain means by which
|
