Daily National Intelligencer

From the New-York Commercial Advertizer.

NEW-YORK GENERAL SESSIONS

The People,

On an Indictment

VS.

for a

Margaret Mullen,

Common Scold.

Yesterday morning came on in the Court of General Sessions, now sitting before his honor the Mayor, and Aldermen Fish and Pell, the trial of the indictment against the defendant, for being a Common Scold. Several witnesses were sworn, and it was proved, that the defendant lived in Broadway, near Duane-street, and keeps a small shop; that she was, when not out of temper, an industrious, quiet and decent woman, but that when irritated, she was a most outrageous and violent scold, attacking any and every body indiscriminately who did not please her, or against whom she had any dislike; that she was unfortunately addicted to intoxication, and when in that state, was more outrageous than at any other time; that these fits sometimes occurred twice or three times a month, sometimes more and sometimes less frequent, and lasted one, two or three days; that during these times, her tongue was most violent, frequently collecting a mob of boys about the door, &c.

J. W. Brackett and Dr. Graham were her counsel, and the latter gentleman in a long speech, contended. 1st, That the defendant being indicted at common law, (there being no statute against scolding) must, if convicted, suffer the common law punishment of Ducking, and that would not, as Lord Holt had observed, cure her, but would in all probability, render her incorrigible—2d, That in this country no indictment would lay against scolding, because no conviction had been found in England, from where we derived our common law, for more than 100 years, and of course the custom was exploded and extinct—3d, That admitting that conviction be had on this indictment, and the punishment of ducking to follow the conviction, it was barbarous and inhuman to subject the fair sex to corporeal punishment, when men were by law exempt from it. He concluded with a most pathetic appeal to the feelings of the jury in favor of his fair client.

Mr. Van Hock, in behalf of the district attorney, contended, that at common law a scold was indictable as a nuisance, and that she might be punished with fine and imprisonment, our statute having abrogated corporal punishment—that from the evidence he had produced, no doubt could remain of the defendant being an uncommon great scold, though she might not be a common scold within the meaning of the law.

The Court charged the Jury, that they did not think the indictment supported by the evidence, as it required proof, that a person was of a temper tending to annoy the public, and that proof of these few instances of scolding, did not, in their opinion, support the indictment; that this was the first instance (except the one lately in Boston) of an indictment for this offence, and that it would be better that the parties should be acquitted, than that a new bill for prosecution should be opened, a shorter remedy than by indictment being to be had—viz. binding the parties for their good behaviour. Upon the whole the court advised an acquittal.—The jury pronounced a verdict of NOT GUILTY.

This trial being novel, being the first in this state, Caused much amusement, apparently some anxiety to the female part of the audience; & some of them seemed to fear that this invasion of the rights of women might ultimate in their being deprived of their principal weapon of offence as well as defence. And we congratulate them upon the defeat of this attempt to muzzle them.