WARDEN, and CURTIS, and WORDEN, and AUSTIN, and BIGELOW and SMITH, and BRIGHAM, and SPENCER. He laughs perpetually here. Even when VAN ARSDALE showed the scarred traces of the assassin's knife, and when HELEN HOLMES related the dreadful story of the Murder of her patrons and friends, he laughed. He laughs while I am pleading his griefs. He laughs when the Attorney General's bolts would seem to rive his heart. He will laugh when you declare him guilty. When the Judge ⚫ shall proceed to the last fatal ceremony, and demand what he has to say why the Sentence of the Law should not be pronounced upon him, although there should not be an unmoistened eye in this vast assembly, and the stern voice addressing him should tremble with emotion, he will even then look up in the face of the Court and laugh, from the irresistible emotions of a shattered mind, delighted and lost in the confused memory of absurd and ridiculous associations. Follow him to the scaffold. The executioner cannot disturb the calmness of the idiot. He will laugh in the agony of death. Do you not know the significance of this strange and unnatural risibility? It is a proof that God does not forsake even the poor wretch whom we pity or despise. There are, in every human memory, a well of joys and a fountain of sorrows. Disease opens wide the one, and seals up the other forever."

"The circumstances under which this trial closes are peculiar. I have seen capital cases where the parents, brothers, sisters, friends of the accused surround him, eagerly hanging upon the lips of his advocate, and watching in the countenances of the Court and Jury, every smile and frown which might seem to indicate his fate. But there is no such scene here. The Prisoner, though in the greenness of youth, is withered, decayed, senseless, almost lifeless. He has no father here. The descendant of slaves, that father died a victim to the vices of a superior race. There is no mother here, for her child is stained and polluted with the blood of mothers and of a sleeping infant; and "he looks and laughs so that she cannot bear to look upon him." There is no brother, or sister, or friend here. Popular rage against the accused has driven them hence, and scattered his kindred and people. On the other side I notice the aged and venerable parents of VAN NEST, and his surviving children, and all around are mourning and sympathizing friends. I know not at whose instance they have come. I dare not say they ought not to be here. But I must say to you that we live in a Christian and not in a Savage State, and that the affliction which has fallen upon these mourners and us, was sent to teach them and us mercy and not retaliation; that although we may send this Maniac to the scaffold, it will not recall to life the manly form of VAN NEST, nor reanimate the exhausted frame of that aged matron, nor restore to life and grace, and beauty, the murdered mother, nor call back the infant boy from the arms of his Savior. Such a verdict can do no good to the living, and carry no joy to the dead. If your judgment shall be swayed at all by sympathies so wrong, although so natural, you will find the saddest hour of your life to be that in which you will look down upon the grave of your victim, and "mourn with compunctious sorrow that you should have done so great injustice to the "poor handful of earth that will lie mouldering before you."

What follows, is from the argument of Mr. Van Buren. He is commenting upon the testimony of some of the most important witnesses for the defence.

"Allow me to say, that I feel, in common with the whole public, the obligations we are under to Dr. Brigham, for his unwearied efforts and extensive researches in the humane and benevolent mission of alleviating the unfortunate condition of those whom God has bereft of reason. The great good he has thus accomplished reflects credit on him, on the Institution over which he presides, and on the State, and elevates the social condition of the age. I admire his intelligence in his profession, and his kindness of heart; and I feel happy to think that the acquaintance I have enjoyed with him for years might almost give me the right to claim him as a personal friend. But you and I see perfectly the difficulty with him as a witness on the stand. He is as profoundly ignorant of Law as he is familiar with Medicine. He is utterly unaccustomed to the prejudice, perversion and perjury of witnesses; and coming from the Asylum with a conviction that Freeman must be insane because he does not assign, and the Doctors cannot guess, an adequate motive for the crime, his only inquiry is, to which class of insane persons he shall assign the Prisoner; and without stopping to reflect whether the Prisoner or his witnesses may not lie, he notes down, as the trial proceeds, here a fact denoting Dementia, and there another indicating Homicidal Monomania; now something that looks like General Mania, and there a suspicion of Cleptomania; occasional symptoms of Macho Mania, and again strong manifestations of the Lying Mania. On such testimony he builds his theory. He will not sit still to hear a witness cross-examined. If the witness John De Puy (the brother-in-law of Prisoner, whom I moved to have committed for glaring perjury on the stand, a motion yet undisposed of.) swears to Freeman's being up at night, dancing when he should have been asleep, Doctor Brigham makes a memorandum-"Restless nights - Insanity;" and I can't get him to sit still till the cross examination shows that the true entry should be "Negro Frolic - Rum." He will not believe our witnesses because they do not see what he has pre-determined exists. He believes the Prisoner's mother quicker than a disinterested witness. When asked if he relies on an unchaste black, he replies with charming ingenuousness, "I do believe Deborah." You can furnish him no proofs of sanity, for there is nothing he has not seen or heard of insane people doing. He is filled with vagaries of the insane-ignorant almost of the habits of the sane. With the nature of blacks he is peculiarly unfamiliar. He does not know whether they ever tan. He cannot tell whether illness makes them pale. He thinks Freeman ought to have fled faster, yet he cannot tell the distance a horse will ordinarily travel in a day.”

"Did Mr. Austin think him insane in jail? He swears he prayed with him; and I can hardly believe that he would pray with an insane man. Pray for him he might and ought, but I hardly think he would pray with him. His examinations of the prisoner have been most singular. In regard to the fundamental principles of religion he never questioned him.

These, he says, he supposed he knew, and yet these would seem to be the precise subjects of christian inquiry, and instruction in these, all important to the prisoner's salvation. Neither Mr. Austin nor any other witness ever attempted to set Freeman right as to a single notion he entertained, which might influence his future conduct. So far from it, efforts were continually made to lead him from one folly or absurdity to another. When Hopkins understood him to say he had seen Jesus Christ in Sunday school, instead of correcting or reproving this unhappy creature on the brink of destruction, Hopkins asked him whether Jesus Christ took a class, and whether he preached or talked! Dr. Austin gave him a testament, and he is the first man who is proved to have witnessed the prisoner's peculiar manner of reading. Has he tried to correct him? Has anybody attempted to teach him to read? Witness upon witness has been taken to the jail to see the prisoner run his fingers along the sacred pages and repeat the words 'O Lord -Jesus Christ - Mercy Moses,' which were not on the pages, and yet Dr. Austin, instead of stopping this mummery, furnished the testament, first witnessed the performance, and has again and again superintended it since! If the Rev. Mr. Austin knew the natural disposition of the negro as well as I do, and his clerical duty as well as I hope he does, he would have taken Freeman a jewsharp, instead of a testament, to play on! "

"I know there is always a disposition to forget the dead over whom the grave has closed, and to sympathize with the living criminal, no matter how debased and degraded. But I cannot believe that when such a man as John G. Van Nest is cut off in the prime of life, with everything about him to make the world attractive, and sent, without an instant of preparation, to stand before his Maker, that a jury of his neighbors and friends will set at large the instrument of his destruction. It is to me, as you must know, a matter of no concern, personally. The Van Nests were unknown to me; and although the heart of this family tree has been cut out, leaving behind nothing but the dependent branches and decaying roots, I have lost neither acquaintances nor friends. This miserable prisoner can excite no antipathy; he is unworthy of the hostility of any human being. The danger to the peace of this community only affects me, as a lover of good order. If crimes of this magnitude are to go unpunished, and thus to invite imitation, it is your hearth-stones, not mine, that may be drenched in blood. But I do confess to a feeling of pride at the administration of justice in our state. Elsewhere, the marderer may go at large as a somnambulist, an insane man, or a justifiable homicide. But in New York, thus far, the steady good sense and integrity of our juries, and the enlightened wisdom of our judges, have saved our jurisprudence from ridicule, and firmly upheld law and order. Thus may it ever be; and I feel entire confidence, notwithstanding the extraordinary appeals that have been made to you in this case, that your verdict will be in keeping with the high character our tribunals have thus acquired, and will prove that the jurors of Cayuga fully equal their fellow citizens of other counties, in intelligence to perceive, and independence to declare the guilt of a criminal."

The case was submitted to the jury, who brought in a verdict of guilty on the 23d of July; and at half past six o'clock on the morning of the 24th, sentence of death was passed upon the prisoner. A writ of errror was allowed, and the case was carried before the supreme court for review; and after argument, in the November following, the exceptions were sustained, and a new trial ordered. Meanwhile, the prisoner remained in chains, in the jail of Cayuga county. When a new trial was granted, he was examined by the circuit judge in reference to his mental condition and the propriety of a second trial, and was found to have declined gradually in health and strength, and to be as unconcerned about his fate, as when upon the trial for his life. He was never tried again, but died in his cell, August 21, 1847. A post mortem examination showed a chronic disease of the brain, and that the left temporal bone, in the vicinity of the auditory nerve, was carious and much diseased.

We cannot close our imperfect notice of this exciting and remarkable trial, without expressing our unqualified admiration at the conduct of the counsel for the defence. Amid the execrations and denunciations of the thoughtless, and the unmeasured censure of those who would call themselves law-abiding men, hampered and thwarted by the court, with no expectation of reward or recompense of fame, they discharged fearlessly and faithfully their sacred duty to the prisoner, to their profession, and to society. To the senior counsel, particularly, is especial honor due. Having enjoyed the highest political honor in the gift of the citizens of his state, at the head of his profession, in feeble health, and with multiplied professional engagements, he could well have resisted the urgent solicitations of the few philanthropic individuals who believed the prisoner insane. But he had not so learned his duty. Believing that the deepest interests of society were at stake, and shocked that a maniac should be tried as a malefactor, regardless of personal considerations, he interposed in the prisoner's defence with the determination to stand by him until his steps should, lose their hold upon the scaffold. To his conduct, in this case, the history of jurisprudence furnishes many contrasts, but no parallel. Through his efforts, mainly, it is that, in this instance, the stain of judicial murder does not rest upon the escutcheon of New York.

Recent American Decisions.

Supreme Court, Illinois, December Term, 1847.

ORRIN SHERMAN ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. HENRY GASSETT ET AL., DEFENDANTS IN ERROR.

Error to Cook County Court.

To a scire facias to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants pleaded the usury laws of Massachusetts, alleging in substance, their indebtedness to plaintiffs; that in order to obtain forbearance thereon, they executed certain notes therefor, payable in Boston at intervals, with ten per cent. interest semi-annually, which notes were intended to be secured by the mortgage sued on; and that, though the notes appear on their face to have been executed in Chicago, they were in fact executed in Boston. The mortgage was acknowledged and recorded in Cook county, on the day of its date: Held, that the forfeiture provided for in the usury laws of Massachusetts being a part of the law of remedy, could not be enforced by the courts of this state.

It is a well-settled rule, that the courts of one country will not enforce either the criminal or penal laws of another; nor will they carry out or be guided by the laws of another, regulating the forms of actions, or the remedies provided for civil inju ries. But it is equally well settled, that in the construction of contracts, and in ascertaining whether they are valid, the law of the country where the contract was made, or to be performed, shall in general, govern.

The lex loci only governs in ascertaining whether a contract is valid, and what the words of the contract mean. When the question is settled, that the contract of the parties is legal, and what is the true interpretation of the language employed by the parties in framing it, the lex loci ceases its functions, and the lex fori steps in and determines the time, the mode, and the extent of the remedy.

To a scire facias to foreclose a mortgage, a plea commencing as a plea of part pay. ment, and concluding by praying judgment, was interposed, to which there was a general demurrer, which was sustained: Held, that payment in part, or in whole, might properly be pleaded, and that, in this case, if the plea had been specially demurred to, it should have been held bad.

SCIRE FACIAS, to foreclose a mortgage, issued from the Cook county court, at the instance of the defendants in error, against the plaintiffs in error. The cause was heard before the Hon. Hugh T. Dickey, on demurrers to pleas. The demurrers were sustained, and the defendants brought their writ of error to reverse the decision of the court.

The substance of the pleas are stated in the opinion of this

court.

A. T. Bledsoe, for the plaintiffs in error.