The trial of Prof. John W. Webster, indicted for the murder of Dr. George Parkman, at the Medical college (North Grove street) on the 23d of November, 1849 : Supreme judicial court, before Chief Justice Shaw, and Associate Justices Wilde, Dewey, and Metcalf. Counsel for the government, Attorney General J.H. Clifford, and George Bemis, esq. Counsel for the defence, Hon. Pliny Merrick, and E.D. Sohier, esq. / Reported for Boston journal.
- Webster, John White, 1793-1850
- Date:
- 1850
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: The trial of Prof. John W. Webster, indicted for the murder of Dr. George Parkman, at the Medical college (North Grove street) on the 23d of November, 1849 : Supreme judicial court, before Chief Justice Shaw, and Associate Justices Wilde, Dewey, and Metcalf. Counsel for the government, Attorney General J.H. Clifford, and George Bemis, esq. Counsel for the defence, Hon. Pliny Merrick, and E.D. Sohier, esq. / Reported for Boston journal. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.
42/68 (page 36)
![iDg it so, I thought, the lecture was not out; not wishing to disturb tlse lecture, I wen' down towards tire dissecting room door. As 1 jjas^ed the foot vi the staiis rounci the corner, I met Dr. haiknian nearly at the top of the stairs, the sarae I came down; he was walking very fast. tl camt' up to 102 Court treet to d an errand, and v.ei t act ;o tlie Medical Colege, where 1 got about 3 o'clock. I rai:g the bell for the Janitor, aiid in the course of two or three minutes he came to the door, the front door I recognized him. I don't recollect anything about his ap- pearance. I asked Mr. LittJefield if theie was a student by tue name of t'ottVaiu. He said lie did not know tlie gentle- man, but if he WHS there, he was in the dissecting r'oou! 1 went down intu the dissecting room, and found Mr. Colliain there, and baa some conversation with him. Mr. Littletield catne to the door in his everyday dress On the 21st of Soveoiber i borrowed some money and gave my note payable lu lour months. I was in Grai'tui'. On the 22d 1 came to liviston 1 was unweii on that dj) and did not go out. I went out the next day after din- ner. I dined with a friend up in the rear of 684 Wash- ington street—in Cottage Flac:r. I^te my dinner as sooi* as I could convenieutl) , and went immediately to the (\il!ege. Mr. CotTrain liame into the entry, ami we talked neurl) ten miiiuies. I i.ud a letter for him. I was in this city <he next day, doing bu- siness vi'ith my brother ai Sciuth IJuston. ihe Rev. Mr. Bosweil. This was Saturdai I t;siard of the disappear- ance of Dr. Farkman on Saturday afternoou. Heard a gent!er;ian speak ol it at the depot anu read the notice in the e-s-iiing pyj.er. 1 recollei-.itri the circam- stance of seeing Dr. Faikmsii, and spoke of it in the de pot at the time. I went iiome !0 Graitou on Saturday af- ternoon . ' I was iirst apprised yesterday at 11 o'clock that my at- tendance would be required here I was at Grafton. [The Attorney General here rose and stated tliat the evidence for tiie Government was all in, when the Court at i to 2 i*. M. adjourn-id to 3^ P. M. AFTERNOON SITTING. The Court came in at Sj o'clock, P M., the room being crowded to its utmost capacity. E. D. Sohier, Esq., ju- nior coun^-el for the defence, addressed the <. ourt and Jury fubstantiaily as follows: [ We use the first person, for convenience sake, in writing out our abstract.] May it please your Honors, and GenUemnn of the. Jury: I am aware that it is usual, and tha\ it may be consider- ed imperative on me, as counsel in a case like the present, involving consioejaiious so monieiitoiis, to call your atten- tion to my client, and to couimeni, insiiong and vigorous language, upon the interests which ht lias at stake—to place before you the position in which he stands, both to the Court and Jury. But this I shall not do; I cannot do it. If I were to attempt it. I fear that I should withdraw attention Jrom the act to the man—that I sliould forget the cause, and only rem^Tnber the individual, who, tor fifty years, has beenahigljiy rf.-pectea resident of this community—long an able ai^d iiifiuential lecturer at Har- vard University, where Si m^aiy distinguished men have received ths-ir collegiate education I siiould only see be- fore me the prisoner in the dock, engaged in a struggle tor life, pressed and weighed dowc by theevidence'ad- duced against iiim. 1 might think of oniy these ihin^is, and wander Irom the cause. I shall tiie/efore only foilow in the steps, though at an immense distance, ol the able counsel for the government, who has pie<jeded me,—alluding to the duties of all C' ucei ned—to run over the evidence present- ed, aiid con.^ider its appisci; loii to the case in hand. We are here to ai.-cuss and to determine, in the dis- charge of our duties, th>- Oise great question which for so many months, has excited and agitated to its lowest depJ.ls the u e'iiig of Mu.i iuj-ge commuiiily—the quevtion —is the life of I'rof Web.-ter justly forieited to his coun- try for the commission of the gieatest offence iu the whole catalogue of crimes—and lias this been proved beyond a douut? It i.s riie determination of this question which devolves on us—on you as judges, on you as jury, and on myself and associate as counsel. ;,v(,On you, gentlemen of the jury, it depends to say wheth- er Prof Webster shall return to the bosom ol' his family, or whether that family shall be rendered drear and deso- late; whether his hitherto untarnished name shall be kept free from stain, or whether he shall be consigned to an ignominious grave, in which his family would gladly bury that, name, which must forever be a reproach and a shame unto them. It iiepeiids on you to say whether tiiat fireside sliall be lighted up with the ^mile of a father and husband—on you, Mr. Foreman, when you shall return your verdict—or whether that light shall go out, and ut- ter daiknesB veil the se=ne, and tue delendaut at the bar be consigned to a felon's doom. If you err, gentlemen, in the rendering of your verdict, he and his family must be the viciims, unless, indeed, you err on the side of nnjr- cy—on that side on which it is permitted for man to ap- proach nearest unto his Maker. In this sou hold the cat- est position. We, his counsel, if we err,' must answer to the prisoner and his friends, to a een and scrutiniging profe.ssiou, and to our own con.scien es, for the manner in which we s'iall conduct tlie case Lei us not then, gentlemen, stana in any antagonistie po.siiiou. It ill becomes us to usi ,ny chioanery, any trick, to accomplish our ends. It w< d ill become you to yield in any particular You are gentlemen, to be- come in one sense tlie counsel for the risouer—to watch ovei-and protect his rights, to give hi the ad-antage of every point that may operate in his favi -. and that without the slightest regeid to the manner in v liich we shall con- duct the case, or present the evidence o you. You are* never to for.et that your oath binds yo to have in charge the rights of the defendant and his fami.v. Ana here 1 beg, in the name oi'the dei^'udant and all he h;is at slake, to make a flaw remarks up..n a topic which, p> ihaps, I should not notice, except und^'r circumstances so overwhelming as the present. I entreat you, gentle- men of the jury, to commence an examination of the case with an exrimhiation of vourown minds. I ask you most eirnestlx oeiadiciite from your minds all suspicion, all bias; all prejudice I well remember, that before you were sworn, ^ ou v.ere each of you asked, by the Court, if you were sensible of any prejudice; and I well remem- lier.vour answers, that you were not i-ensible of any prejudice Can you say so now ? < an you. at the end of ii week's exumination of evidence such as iias been pre- sented—uiiic'i of it besring iiL'air.s' t're defendant—can ' ou sa\ tharvou are fee, entirely free from prejudice ? Wjiatsafetk, let me ask, in aiiupi} saying that yoii are not sensible of prejudice, when we know that it is tlie very life of pn-judicfe to lurk in the mind—to conceal itself, as it were, ill its inmost recesses, to blind the intellect and to distort the judgment ? How, under such a state of things, can we look lor ^alety or proiectiou ? I entreat you to discard everythii.g like prejudice from your minds; if ^ ou do it, then are we safe. I'rejiniice is contagious—it flies from mind to mind—from eye to eye—and is commu- nicated by every intonation of tiie voice. If prejudice exists in the mind of a single rnenibpr of the paiinl. then there is no saiety iin-u=.. Let nie a,gaiu en ileal, } ou to search for it—to exterminate it. I ask it as between man and man—as between friends. Are we to forget, or are you to forget, the great ex- citement which prevailed in the community wiien it was first bruited forth that Dr. George Farkman was missing; when men gave up their business, congiegated in the 'streets, upon the corners, and even in the churches, to con- verse upoii the owe all- absorbing topic,—an excitement in the liighest degree crediiabie lo the oomuiunicy, but extremely dangerous to the detiendant? Can we forget the deep indignation ivhich was called forth against Frof Webster, and the innocent College it^- self, when it was announced tiiat the remains had been found in the laboratory? No—these thiii^^s are not for- gotten, but they are burned into our memories. Can VI e, then, say that no prejudice still clings to us ? It is this which urges me so strongly to entreat of you to free yourselves from all bias, and to commence a considera- tion of this part of the case with your minds entirely open to the evidence as it shall be presented. Instead of detailing minutely the course we shall adopt, or what we intend to prove, I shall first call your atten- tion to the rules of law which apply lo the offence of which the defendant stands charged; secondly, to the mai.nerin which that offence was committed, or to the indictment; thirdly, to the nature of the government evi- dence, and the rules of law which apply to that; and last- ly, briefly state the facts we intend to prove, taken into connection with the goveinuient evidence, or such parts of it as you may rely upon : 1st. As to tlie rules of law which describe the offence c/iarged against Frof. Webster. The offence charged is murder—the murder of George I'arkiiian. What are the rules which describe the offence ? We must know these, to know when the offence is proved and when it is left in doubt. Murder is a division of the word homicide. Hom- icide covers every possible form or mode of killing a hu- man being, and i^ divided into homicide criminal, and therefore punishable, and homicide not criminal, and therefore not punishable. Criminal homicide is divided into two parts—murder, which is punisheu wiih death—and manslaughter, which, though it may be punished with a severe and protracted imprisonment, still is not punished with death fiie in- dictment charges murder, but as an individual indicted for murder may be convicted of manslaughter, the very man indicted stands as if twice indicted—first for murder and then for mau.siaugliter. The first question which ari.ses is—what is murder in itself considered?—the second, what is manslaughter consideiel by itself? Murder is the killing of any human being by malice, afore- thought. Two things are necessary—the killing and the malice aforethought. And what is malice? It is divided into two kinds—first, express malice ; second, malice implied. Express malice you well understand: it means that an individual has a wicked and ruucorous mind, which leads liim to commit some tieinous act, as to kill a man. The definition of implied malice, is not so easy of comprehension, as the law iuler.i the malice from the act or acts. The law intends to punitih the mind, or](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21083629_0042.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
