It has been contended, that proof must be given that the person accused did actually afford aid, did lend a hand in the murder itself; and without this proof, although he may be near by, he may be presumed to be there for an innocent purpose; he may have crept silently there to hear the news, or from mere curiosity to see what was going on.[2] Preposterous, absurd!  Such an idea shocks all common sense.  A man is found to be a conspirator to commit a murder; he has planned it; he has assisted in arranging the time, the place and the means; and he is found in the place, and at the time, and yet it is suggested that he might have been there, not for co-operation and concurrence, but from curiosity!  Such an argument deserves no answer.  It would be difficult to give it one, in decorous terms.  Is it not to be taken for granted, that a man seeks to accomplish his own purposes?  When he has planned a murder, and is present at its execution, is he there to forward or to thwart his own design? is he there to assist, or there to prevent?  But “Curiosity”!  He may be there from mere “curiosity”!  Curiosity to witness the success of the execution of his own plan of murder!  The very walls of a court-house ought not to stand, the ploughshare should run through the ground it stands on, where such an argument could find toleration.[3]

It is not necessary that the abettor should actually lend a hand, that he should take a part in the act itself; if he be present ready to assist, that is assisting.  Some of the doctrines advanced would acquit the defendant, though he had gone to the bedchamber of the deceased, though he had been standing by when the assassin gave the blow.  This is the argument we have heard to-day.

     The court here said, they did not so understand the argument of the
     counsel for defendant.  Mr. Dexter said, “The intent and power alone
     must co-operate.”

No doubt the law is, that being ready to assist is assisting, if the party has the power to assist, in case of need.  It is so stated by Foster, who is a high authority.  “If A happeneth to be present at a murder, for instance, and taketh no part in it, nor endeavoreth to prevent it, nor apprehendeth the murderer, nor levyeth hue and cry after him, this strange behavior of his, though highly criminal, will not of itself render him either principal or accessory.”  “But if a fact amounting to murder should be committed in prosecution of some unlawful purpose, though it were but a bare trespass, to which A in the case last stated had consented, and he had gone in order to give assistance, if need were, for carrying it into execution, this would have amounted to murder in him, and in every person present and joining with him.”  “If the fact was committed in prosecution of the original purpose which was unlawful, the whole party will be involved in the guilt of him who gave the blow.  For in combinations of this kind, the mortal stroke, though given by one of the