The fact that the sister never heard the knife open,
although it had three clasps, was asserted to be evidence that the
prisoner entered the room with his knife open and intending to commit the
crime. This charge of _malice prepense_ was supported by the son's
refusal to answer his father, by the insolence of his language, and by
the number and vehemence of the stabs he inflicted.
The prisoner's defence was also very simple. According to his own story,
he was half drunk on his return home. His father not only taunted and
threatened him, but at last seized the door-bar and began knocking him
about the head; and then, at last, maddened with pain and passion, he
drew out a knife he had picked up on the road, and stabbed his father,
hardly knowing what he did. On the bare statement of facts, I should
deem this version of the story the more probable of the two, but as no
details whatever are given of the evidence on either side, it is
impossible to judge. The court at any rate decided that there was no
proof of the prisoner having been drunk, and that the evidence of his
father having struck him was of a suspicious character, "while," they
add, "it would be absurd and immoral to maintain, that a father, whose
right and duty it is to correct his children (and indeed on this occasion
correction was abundantly deserved by the insolent demeanour of Luigi)
could be considered to provoke his son by a slight personal
chastisement.
Pages:
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62