Trial of Judge Wilkinson, Dr. Wilkinson, and Mr. Murdaugh on indictments for the murder of John Rothwell and Alexander H. Meeks : in an affray which occurred at the Galt House, Louisville, Ky., on the 15th of December, 1838 / reported by T. Egerton Browne.

  • Wilkinson, Edward C.
Date:
1839
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Trial of Judge Wilkinson, Dr. Wilkinson, and Mr. Murdaugh on indictments for the murder of John Rothwell and Alexander H. Meeks : in an affray which occurred at the Galt House, Louisville, Ky., on the 15th of December, 1838 / reported by T. Egerton Browne. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the National Library of Medicine (U.S.), through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the National Library of Medicine (U.S.)

    54/144
    testimony is, that ho expected t'f.t affray and vm prepared to watch narrowly what w as about to take place. He tells you that he had his eye fixed on Judge Wilkinson and Mr. Redding, at the moment his ear caught the words passed from a third person. He was watching these two that he might observe which would commence the expected conflict. Mr. Trabue's is the most consistent and rational ac- count of what then occurred, and I adopt his view of it in preference to others, because I want a clear view only of the facts. Gentlemen, I seek not these men's conviction if they are innocent. It would be at variance with the trust reposed in mc as the organ of government placed between the com- monwealth and the accused. But if your verdict must be against them, though you write it in tears, justice demands that it should be rendered faith- fully. What are the rational conclusions you ought tocomoto? I will tell you my conviction on that point, grounded on the evidence of Trabue and Montgomery and corroborated by others. When Judge Wilkinson had arrived in his bed-room; had told his brother and Mr. Murdaugh what had occur- red between himself and Redding; and Mr. Everett had left them—these gentlemen deliberately agreed to come down and see the contest out. They were Mississippians—they had shown their knives, at least two of them, and a third, a large bowie knife, had been added—and they descended for the work of death. They knew of no hostile foes below but Redding, for they could not know of any other; there was no reason to believe they could meet with any others in the bar-room, over whom they could crow and triumph, but Redding: and they did crow and triumph over him; for it is in proof that he truckled under, when Murdaugh said, I understand sir, you say, or it is reported, that I assaulted you in your own house with a bowie knife. If you say so, you are a damned liar. Redding did not stand up to this like a man. He backed out by saying, I do not say it was you, but one of the three did it. Is it like what a man backed by a mob would say? Is this like what a man surrounded by a com- pany of friends would say? Gentlemen, it is im- possible to believe it. It is immaterial what part Redding took in the affray. The question is, what excuse these gentle- men had for taking the life of a fellow creature. It is my duty to show you what the law says in re- ference to killing and excuses for killing. I shall come to that presently. Murdaugh had his knife in his hand before any attempt at assault had been made on him. When Meeks approached him, what would any man expect but a blow? What kind of blow did Murdaugh receive from Meeks? Why, nothing but a blow of a short cow-hide over the head: and, unfortunately for Murdaugh, the law will not excuse him for resenting a blow that could not have threatened his life, by taking a life lor that blow. I promised to show you what the law says on this point: He that would excuse himself upon the foot of self-defence must show that before a mor- tal stroke was given he had declined farther combat and had retreated as far as he could with safety, and also that he killed his adversary through mere ne- cessity and to avoid immediate death or great bodily harm.—Foster, page 277. This is the law; and it is not now necessary for me to go farther than to show you it is founded upon natural and immutable principles of justice. A, being assaulted by B, re- turneth the blow, and a fight ensueth. A before a mortal wound given, declineth any farther conflict, andretreatethasfarashe can with safety; and then, in his own defence killeth B; this is excusable self- defence, though A had given several blows, not mortal, before his retreat. But if the mortal stroke had been first given it would have been manslaugh- ter.—Foster, page 277. He must show that at the moment of the mortal blow, he gave it from neces- sity, to avoid his own death or great bodily harm. Here is another case: The prisoner was indicted for the murder of his brother; and the case upon evi- dence appeared to be, that the prisoner on the night the fact was committed came home drunk. His father ordered him to go to bed, which he refused to do, whereupon a scuffle ensued between the father and son. The deceased, who was then in bed, hear- ing the disturbance, got up and fell upon the prison- er, threw him down, and beat him upon the ground; and there kept him down, so that he could not es- cape, nor avoid the blows; and as they were so stri- ving the prisoner gave the deceased a wound, with a penknife, of which he died. This, upon a special verdict, was, at a conference of all the Judges of England, ruled manslaughter—for there did not appear to be any inevitable necessity so as to excuse the killing in this manner.'—Foster, page 278. In all cases where a blow is given to produce death, un- less to avoid death or great bodily harm, it is either murder or manslaughter. Now, unless there was absolute necessity that Murdaugh, to avoid death or great bodily harm from the blow inflicted by Meeks, gave that deadly blow which killed Meeks, after he had changed the knife from his right to his left hand; and unless you believe that he could not himself escape death but by killing Meeks, you must believe him guilty of manslaughter at least, according to the law. The law discountenances the idea that because a man is a mechanic you are not in an unavoidable scuffle to resort to fistycuffs,on account of any presumed supe- riority of station; but when your adversary assaults in that way, that you may draw a deadly weapon and kill your opponent; because the law cannot