|
298
intention of paying him ; that he did not pay him; that he had not
the means of paying him : but that his object was to get possession
of those notes on which this claim was due. And, in consequence of
this engagement, Dr. Parkman did go; that Dr. Webster, instead of
being prepared to pay his debt, took measures to destroy the life of
his creditor, with 3 view of getting possession of the notes, without
payment; that he did get such possession; that he then gave out to
the world that he had paid $483.64, which was the smaller Dote; and
therefore that the object was an act of plunder, and that, too, by tak-
ing the life of the individual. If that is proved to your satisfaction,
undoubtedly it is a case of express malice.
If proved, I cannot distinguish between this and a case of prop-
erty found upon the person alleged to have plundered another of his
property. Such possession, established by proof, beyond reasonable
doubt, tends to show that plunder was the object for which the act
was done.
Gentlemen, you will have the notes. There is abundant. proof
about the pecuniary transactions between Mr. Pettee and Dr. Web-
ster. Mr. Pettee was an officer who was appointed to collect the
dues from the students. He testifies to you that he happened to be
at the Medical College on the morning of that Friday, and that he
went there for the purpose of paying Dr. Webster $90, which was
due to him, having paid him $250 or $260 before. $500 was
received by Mr. Pettee to Dr. Webster's credit, at one time, about
half of which was paid to Dr. Bigelow. You will compare these state-
ments of Mr. Pettee with the bank-book, and say whether these were
the sums received by Dr. Webster during that period. There is one
of the circumstances which is very significant, and that is, that the
$90 paid, on the morning of that Friday, to Dr. Webster, by Mr. Pettee,
was not a part of the money used for the payment of the note, for
$483.64, which Dr. Webster stated that he paid on that day; because
it appears that that was paid in a check on the Freeman's Bank; and
also, that, on the next day, though possibly on that day, after two
o'clock, but not credited, as it was after bank hours, until the next
day, when the check was entered to his credit, on the books of the
Charles River Bank.
Mr. Pettee says, that he told Dr. Webster that he did not choose
to be troubled by Dr. Parkman ; and, on account of his desire of
avoiding Dr. Parkman, he had previously told Littlefield to inform
Dr. Webster that he would meet him on that Friday morning, at the
Medical College, to pay him whatever sums were due. He testifies
that, though he had some business transactions with Dr. Webster
at that time, he thinks he did not mention to Dr. Webster the
harsh language used by Dr. Parkman. Still he said he did mention
that he had had trouble, and that Dr. Webster said, °° There would
be no difficulty about it, for he had settled with Dr. Parkman."
If this engagement with Dr. Parkman was made by Dr. Webster,
with the purpose of getting possession of those notes, and by means
of this arrangement he did get possession of those notes, it would be
a very strong case of murder by express malice. A fact, if it be so,
that there was still money due on the larger note -I mean, money not
paid, and which was not due for more than a year-would be a still
stronger circumstance than finding the note that was due; because
|
