The People v. Matthew Wood. on the belly, and on both eyes, and yellow spots and holes in the coats of the stomach; inflammation in the throat and passage to the stomach. It was proved that the prisoner had been angry at losing his wife's fortune, and had sworn that he would be revenged on some one of the family for what they had done to him. The deceased had retained her faculties to the last, and during the eight or ten hours that she lived after her breakfast, she had spoken very freely to the neighbors, and in his presence, of the occurrences of the day, and it was principally from her declarations that the evidence of his conduct was obtained. The moment she was taken sick, she suspected she had been poisoned, and from that time repeatedly had said that she was done for; that she had long expected it; that she expressed a wish to see a clergyman, and one of the witnesses, to whom she disclosed most of the facts, testified that their conversation began by deceased saying, “Jane, I've got what I think will do my job." I told her to be busy with the Almighty, for I didn't think she would ever live to see twelve o'clock again. She said, "The Lord have mercy on my soul, for I am going to have a short warning to face my maker. What have I done to Matthew Wood to have done this to me?" She said she had put the pan, which had the batter in it, behind a box under the bed, until some one should come in that she could show it to, but he had taken the pan and cleaned it out, and he had never done any such thing before, or, as she expressed it, "if she had a headache he wouldn't help her; that if she was dying he wouldn't lift the chair from his backsides." All this was said in his presence, and when the witness told him it was a bad job he had done, and he ought to be on his knees day and night, he merely answered that he had had no money in his pocket since Sunday to get any thing for her. He said he had eaten the cakes which she left; the deceased answered him, "No, Matthew, you didn't eat them, you put them in the chamber." The deceased also said, in his presence, that instead of pre 10-vol. 2. The People v. Matthew Wood. serving the vomit, as the doctor had directed, the prisoner had carried it all away, and emptied it out. He was arrested before she died, and he told her of it, and she replied: "Matthew, if I ever did any thing wrong to you, to occasion this, may the Lord forgive you." She also said, in his presence, that when the neighboring girl was invited to eat the cake, he had made signs to her not to eat. And it also appeared that during the day he showed a good deal of anxiety about the girl, and seemed very much frightened, and while at one time he had said he had eaten the cakes that were left, he, at another time, had told the doctor they were thrown away. The Judge, in charging the jury, said that as the case depended mainly on the dying declarations of the deceased, it was important that they should know what reliance to place upon them. Such declarations are admissible only upon a charge for the murder of the declarant, and then they are admissible only when made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death, and when every hope of this world is gone; when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the mind is induced, by the most powerful considerations, to speak the truth. This rule stands on the ground of public necessity of preserving the lives of the community, by bringing manslayers to justice. The persons whose declarations are thus admitted are considered as standing in the same situation as if they were sworn, the danger of impending death being equivalent to the sanction of an oath. They were, therefore, to regard these declarations the same as they would any other testimony in the case, and apply to them the same tests, in order to ascertain their credibility. There was, however, one other consideration for them. Although the court, in admitting the evidence of the declarations, had of necessity decided that the deceased was in a dying state, and was fully conscious of it, yet that did not The People v. Matthew Wood. preclude the jury from considering that question. On the other hand, it was their duty, in determining what weight to give to her words, to inquire, and be satisfied that she was in such a condition, and was, in fact, under the solemn responsibility it imposed. They must be satisfied that they were made under a sense of impending death, though it is not necessary that that should be so stated at the time. And that may be proved by the express language of the deceased, or her conduct, or from the fact of imminent danger, and the opinions of medical and other attendants. All these things may be resorted to to ascertain the state of the declarant's mind, for it is the impression of immediate dissolution, and not the rapid succession of death, in point of fact, that renders the testimony admissible or reliable. The jury were therefore to weigh her declarations as they would that of all the other testimony; the same as if she was a witness giving testimony before them. And, as this question involved the life of a fellow being, they could not be too careful in weighing it well. And, above all, they would look to see if there was any thing in the case testified to by others, calculated to corroborate her story, or whether that story was, in all respects, consistent with itself and the other testimony. Thus they would consider his eating his breakfast in her absence, and sending her away that he might have the opportunity of poisoning what he cooked for her; his refusing to eat of those cakes; his mode of accounting for their taste and color; her and the girl both eating them; both well immediately before, and both being seized with the same symptoms immediately after; his behavior when she related his action, and expressed her suspicions, in his presence; his removing the poisoned cake, after he had heard her tell where she had put it; his cleaning the dishes, a thing unusual with him; his throwing away the vomit, against the physician's specific directions to him; and his tardiness in going for medical or clerical aid The People v. William Pearce. And, on the other hand, they would inquire whether her ill-feeling toward him, or any other evil motive, existed to cause her to make a false accusation of so serious a nature against him. The prisoner was convicted of murder. NEW YORK OYER AND TERMINER. Before EDMONDS, Justice, and two Aldermen. THE PEOPLE V. WILLIAM PEARCE. Elements to make a homicide justifiable. Intoxication, how far an excuse for, or an aggravation of, crime. Though the homicide be effected with a dangerous weapon, so as to be manslaughter in the third degree, yet it may be in the second degree, if the death is effected in a cruel or unusual manner. THE prisoner was indicted for murder. He was a young man, about twenty years old, who earned his living by opening oysters and peddling fish. He was well known as Bill Jackson, about the Five Points, where he lived with a prostitute in a house of ill fame. He was addicted to the use of liquor, and when drunk was violent and abusive, and, as some of the witnesses said, it made him crazy. On the day in question he had spent two or three hours with some companions in visiting different liquor stores, and during that time had drank six or eight times, and, as he was going into another liquor store, quite drunk, he ran against an Italian organ-grinder, and a quarrel occurred between them. The People v. William Pearce. They came to blows, and the prisoner was knocked down, and after he got up he was pelted with ice by the organ-grinder. He went into the store and demanded of the clerk a club which he had left there. On obtaining it he rushed out and attacked the organ-grinder, who fled from him. He struck him one blow on the back of his head, which knocked him down, and struck him with the club five or six times after he was down. He then returned to the store and sat down, spending some time there. He said he had beat the man because he had called him a son of a bitch. The organ man was helped home, and the next day he was taken to the hospital, where he died the ensuing night. A post mortem examination showed that the skull had been fractured and blood had clotted between the brain and the skull, and caused death. The defense set up was justifiable homicide, or at most that it was manslaughter in the third degree, and that the prisoner was too much intoxicated to know what he was doing, or to be responsible for his acts. The Judge charged the jury that to make the homicide justifiable the prisoner must have retreated as far as he could, must have taken all the precautions in his power to prevent fatal consequences, and must have been in no fault himself. That his intoxication was no excuse to him, and never is regarded as an excuse for crime unless it has gone so far and continued so long as, by delirium tremens or otherwise, to overturn the reason and deprive the party of his will power; until, indeed, it produced insanity. Until then it was an aggravation of, rather than an excuse for, crime. The main question, however, in the case for there was no ground to believe there was an intention to kill-was whether the offense was manslaughter in the second or third degree. It was undoubtedly manslaughter in the third degree, for the club that was used was a dangerous weapon, and was used in the heat of passion. |