|
301
together.] I am told there had been no Inquest at that time, but
that is immaterial. There was sufficient evidence to hold the party
for trial; and that is all that is required.
Then, Gentlemen, the question of the anonymous letters. If a
person attempts to divert attention from himself, more especially if it
is to fix attention upon others, that is one of those circumstances,
arising out of human conduct, when an individual has been guilty of
crime. But the facts cannot be proved certainly; and unless they
are proved beyond reasonable doubt, thev are not material. This
only goes to show that, if the proof existed without them, they would
corroborate it. But if the letter marked '° Civis " is written by him,
you will judge whether he was placed in such a situation as to in-
duce hire to write it. A man may be placed in such a situation
that he thinks there are stron(y circumstances against him, and, without
actual guilt, may attempt to ward off proof. But proof is necessary.
With regard to the other two letters, the proof is slight. You will
judge for yourselves whether any of them were written by the de-
fendant.
If this act of homicide was committed by Prof. Webster, and
there is npt sufficient proof to mitigate the crime to manslaughter,
then the conclusion would be that it was murder by implied malice.
If the other assertion is proved, that it was intended to decoy him
to the College, to do this deed, that is express malice. If it is not
proved that he was there, then there must be a general verdict of ac-
quittal.
There is another point, It is competent for a person accused to give
evidence of character. Now there are cases in which a man' may
stand in such a situation that a good character would be very import-
ant to him. A stranger may be placed where there were circum-
stances tending to charge him with larceny, or with some other spe-
cies of crime. He may show that, though there are suspicious cir-
cumstances, yet, where he is known, he is esteemed to be of perfectly
good character; and that sustains him. Such a character may de-
fend him from such a crime. But where it is a question of a great
and atrocious crime, it is so unusual, so out of the ordinary course of
things, he must have been influenced by such facts and circum-
stances as to create effects which have unfrequently been produced
upon a human mind, so that the evidence of character may be con-
sidered as far inferior to what it is in the case of smaller crimes.
Against facts strongly proved, character cannot avail. It is therefore
in smaller offences, in such as relate to the actions of daily life,
-that if a man be charged with being light-fingered, for instance,
he may bring evidence with regard to his character, showing that he
would not be likely to yield to a small temptation In such a case,
evidence concerning character may be given with some effect.
But with regard to the higher crimes, the mere possession of a
good character, though of less avail, is competent evidence to the
Jury, and is one of a species which the party has a right to offer.
The party accused may give evidence of it; and if he does, the
party opposed may present evidence to contradict his witnesses. But
a person who is charged with such an atrocious crime as this, ought
to prove his character by very strong evidence, to make it counter-
balance strong proof on the other side. It is not competent for a
|
