State v. Williams
Opinion of the Court
It appeared, that on the 14th day of May last, the brother in law of the prisoner, and his wife, (who was the sister of the prisoner’s wife) were on a visit at the prisoner’s house, six or seven miles from Clinton., A fishing excursion was proposed and agreed to, upon which the prisoner and his brother in law were absent from the house until about six o’clock in the evening, at which time they returned. Dinner being immediately prepared for them, they sat down apparently in fine humour. While sitting at the table, an infant child of the prisoner, then only nine days old, cried, and Mrs. Williams, its mother, rose and took it up; when the prisoner inquired, “Mary, whose child is that?” She made him no answer. He repeated the inquiry, and she answered, smiling, “ Mr. Williams, you know whose it is.” The prisoner immediately became enraged, and burst forth into a strain of bitter and indelicate abuse. Upon this the brother in law interposed, and threatened to chastise him for his conduct; but in consequence of the entreaties of the prisoner’s wife, he desisted. Shortly after this scene, the brother in law and his wife departed for- their residence in Clinton, the prisoner having apparently become calm, and acknowledged his error: but upon his “sister in law taking leave of him, and offering him her
From the testimony of other witnesses, and particularly the ladies who shrouded the deceased, it appeared that many other severe wounds had been inflicted ; one on the back of the head which reduced the part to a jelly, as if with a stick, a large perforation in the temple, and one or two in her breasts, apparently produced by stabs with a pocket knife.
It appeared from the testimony that the prisoner and his wife had been .married between five and six years; that she- was the mother of four children; that she was young, lovely, amiable, and affectionate, and at the time of her marriage possessed a fortune sufficient to insure, under discreet management, a handsome competence; that he was gay, likely, and possessed a good understanding ; but that under all these circumstances their matrimonial felicity was very incomplete. From a strange perversity of disposition on his part, he had frequently treated her most cruelly. She had several times exhibited marks of the most inhuman violence"; but such was the kindness of her disposition, and the meek forbearance of her nature, upon the smallest expression of his regret for his cruel and unmanly conduct, he was always sure of her forgiveness, and a quick return of her warmest affection. When his injurious conduct was confined to ungenerous and abusive upbraidings, she never murmured or resisted ;
It was attempted, on the part of the counsel for the prisoner, to prove insanity: but they totally failed, all their witnesses proving that he was a man of strong and vigorous intellect. They then rested the defence, and in their arguments contended for an acquittal upon two grounds: first,' the danger of convicting upon circumstantial evidence. Under this head they ingeniously tried to convince the jury that a possibility existed of the deceased having committed self murder. 2dly, They contended and urged, with a zeal deserving a better cause, that if the prisoner did commit the murder, the circumstances attending it were so horrible in themselves as to prove conclusively that he must have been in a state of mental derangement; that no human being possessing the full use of his reason could conceive, much less execute, an act of such dreadful atrocity. At 11 o’clock at night, the trial having occupied the whole of the two preceding days, the argument closed, and the judge having, in an impartial and impressive manner, instructed the jury in all the points of law which could be possibly involved in the case, they retired to their room, and in five minutes returned into court, and amidst the apparent stillness of death, pronounced a verdict of Guilty.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.