|
72
a mortal blow, or one intended to produce death so as to make it
manslapghter where there is an intention to kill:
If there Is, sufficient provocation, it is manslaughter; but words are not
a sufficient provocation. [The
Chief Justice read some authorities from hast's-Crown Laws.] Malice is
implied from any delibe-
rate, cruel act against another, however sadden. When there is a blow of
&deadly or dangerous weapon, with la.
tent to do some great bodily harms and death ensues, malice is presumed. If
a man, provoked by a blow, with m
feeling of resentment returns it, and kills his aggressor, it is not
excusable; but it is a less crime than murder;
it is manslaughter, with heat of blood. We see no evidence in this case of
any provocation or heat of blood.
There were angry feelings, but they do not amount to a provocation or a
heat of blood sufficient to render the
crime manslaughter. The purpose of a Coroner's Inquest is to find how the
dead body came to its
death. There is no distinction, in the eye of the law, between persons,
whether it be a colored
pauper in a country alms-house, or the most distinguished member of the
community. The same ma-
chinery of further proceedings, in cape the Jury find that violence was
used by some party to produce the
death. In this case a charge was made against an individual of having, in
some way or other, produced
death. No one saw it done. The evidence is altogether circumstantial, yet
Lit may be sufficient to pro-
duce a reasonable conviction. Crimes are secret. There is a necessity of
circumstantial evidence, otherwise
we could not protect ourselves from crime. Each sort of evidence has its
advantages. There is no
common standard of comparison. We may often arrive at assure a conviction
by circumstantial asby positive eVi-
denee. The inference from the facts should be a natural or a necessary one,
and each fact should be proved by it-
self. Suppose in the present case the teeth arc found to be those made for
Dr. Parkmau before his death; that fact
is itself sufficieqnt to establish the conclusion that the remains are his,
if no other facts are found repugnant to
this. The allegation is that he entered the Medical College about two
o'clock, and never came out of
it alive. Search was made during the week. The next Friday human remains
were found under the Medi-
cal College. The place was taken possession of by the police.
Investigations were made, and the remains were
declared to be those of Dr. Parkman. Is this proved ? It is proved that he
disappeared from his home on Friday,
forenoon, and did not comeback to dinner. and never came back; this is
established. Has it been proved that he was
seen anywhere after the hour he is said to have entered the college? As to
the testimony of Mrs. Hatch, Mr.
Thompson, Mr. Wentworth, Mr. Cleland, Mrs. Rhoades and her daughter, and
Ire. Greenongh. I need not com-
ment particularly. It is t o be compared with the proof on the other side.
When such a great event happens, the
whole community is thrown into a committee of inquisition, and a large
number of liues of inquiry are instituted;
a great many persons are found who have seen the object of he search. It
became known on Saturday evening
that Dr. Parkman, a man known to almost everybody, had disappeared. The
whole community were put upon their '
recollections, and would it be strange if a great many had seen him, and
yet have been mistaken? If they had
not been mistaken, would not others be found, when all were intent., who
would testify that the-• saw him also?'
This negative evidence; it is true, is not conclusive in itself, but it
goes to destroy the positive evidence, for we
can hardly conceive that if there had been no mistake in those who saw him
as to his identity or the time, a great.
many others would not also have seen him, and would not have recollected it
the next day. If Dr. Parkman went to
the College at the invitation of Dr. Webater, and was there killed by him,
all question of implied malice is put out of
the question, for it was done by express malice. Dr. Webster admits that
Dr. Parkman came there, and, as he says
he paid him money. It is in evidence that Webster staid there that
afternoon, and left there about 6 o'clock. v
In so much as Dr. Parkman has never been seen since that afternoon, if it
shall appear that the remains
found in the apartments of Dr. Webster were identified as his body, the
alibi is of no consequence. In a recent
case in Richmond a man was stabbed with a knife; a man was arrested who had
a knife in his possession the day
before- the handle of the knife was found broken off near the deceased. It
was sworn to be that which belonged to
the prisoner the day before; and, on a pest mortem examination, a blade was
found, which by the scratched ed4es
of the broken steel, tallied with that of the handle. This circumstance was
allowed a great weight. When a.cir.
cumstance of this kind is established, then the absence of any testimony
tothe contrary-the proofof concurrent
circumstances-has a strong tendency to strengthen the conclusion. When a
party has attempted to suppress
proofa, the circumstance acts to prove a consciousness of guilt. When we
apply these principles to a case certain
rules re~tobeapplied. First,thecircumstancesuponwhich the,conclusion
depends are to be fully proved; ail must
connect together; no one must be inconsistent with an act of this nature or
alibi. An alibi means elsewhere. If s
man is charged with being in one place, and he can prove himself in another
at that time, then he must escape.
This is a mode of defence which easily suggests itself, and may be secured
by a little contrivance. Third,
the circumstances must not only limit the guilt of the party, but they must
be such as to exclude e
other reasonable hypothesis. They must exclude all reasonable doubt. What
is a reasonable doubt
must be more than a probability. The facts must be such as to implicate the
defendant also. We must
now, gentlemen, apply these to the present case. The indictment charges J.
W. Webster with the murder of
Dr. George Parkman, on the 23d of November last. The indictment has been
referred to by the defence, and we
have taken the matter into consideration. It is the rule of law that the
means and manner of the crime shall be
set forth, so that the prisoner may prepare for his defence; yet if death
is produced in some new mode, the law we'
mot let the criminal escape. It has general rules which provide for new
cases. The last count sets orth that the
Kanner assaulted and killed George Parkman in some manner or by some weapon
unknown to the jury. Ti>o~
Court are of opinion that this is a good count. 15r. Parkman may have been
assaulted with chloroform or ether,
which stupified and made him insensible, and then death would have been
caused by the weapons to the jury W3-
known; and the jury were only bound to set forth all they knew. That is
necessary to be proved. First. it is neets-
sary to prove the corpus delicti, or the killing so as to exclude suicide
or accident. Dr. Parkman was in good,,
health, as appears by Mr. Shaw, that morning. We come now to the teeth.
These are the principal signs of identi-
fication. That the other parts of the body did not difer in any material
respect from Parkman's, proves little in itself
but becomes very important, if it is made out that the teeth were his. It
is a serious inquiry, whether by the eos-
respondence of the teeth to te mould, the identity can be made out. We must
rely only on the evidence of those
who have made this subject their stuy. Dr. Keep identified these teeth
without hesitation, pronounced them
Dr. Parkman's, and he has explained to you the reasons which confirm him in
that opinion. You have ales
heard the testimony of Dr. Noble to the same effect Dr. Morton is of
opinion that the characteristics of
teeth are not such as to enable a dentist to identify his work, under such
circumstances, with certainty. Three'
other eminent dentists have been called, who are of a different opinion,
and confirm Dr. Keep. This evidence.
is, undoubtedly to be received with care. It is of the same nature of that
which is applied to fossil remains
and by means of which a single bone is made to lead to the discovery of an
entire animal, of an extinct species,.-,
You must be judges of it in this case. If these are the teeth of Dr.
Parkman, and if, as was stated to you, by Ds.
Keep, their condition proves that they were put into the furnace in the
head. and the whole body, no part of it be-
ing dissimilar to Dr. Parkman's, and if the suppositions of suicide and
accidental death are excluded, the corpus de-
Ucti is established. I shall pass over the testimony of Littlefield. It has
been somewhat called in question. But -
whether much or little weight be given it, it does not materially affect
this case. It may be remarked, that, as far -
as it does affect the case. it is confirmed by other witnesses;
(particularly the officers of the police.) From
about Sunday or Monday pretty strict watch was kept of the Medical College
till Friday. Nothing important could
be transacted there without the knowledge of the police, of Littlefield or
Webster. To some of these parties the -
existence and condition of these remains, found partly under the privy, in
the tea chest, and partly in the fur.
nace, must have been known. You will juge from the evidence by whom. We do
not tink much can be argued,
by the conduct of the defendant after his arrest. We have no experience
here to guide us. We. de not knpp-
ha® we should act in auph a case, or how he ought to have acted. To come to
the main proof of t$ja-cwse,tliaw
are two theories in regard to it. The 'Government takes the one, which
supposes that,he inviterd;*,,$arkmlin tp -
|
