I quote from Sir Mathew Hale on the subject.  Speaking of larceny, the learned author says:  “As it is cepit and asportavit, so it must be felonice, or animo furandi, otherwise it is not felony, for it is the mind that makes the taking of another’s goods to be a felony, or a bare trespass only; but because the intention and mind are secret, the intention must be judged of by the circumstances of the fact, and these circumstances are various, and may sometimes deceive, yet regularly and ordinarily these circumstances following direct in the case.  If A., thinking he hath a title to the house of B., seizeth it as his own ... this regularly makes no felony, but a trespass only; but yet this may be a trick to colour a felony, and the ordinary discovery of a felonious intent is, if the party doth it secretly, or being charged with the goods denies it.”

          (1 Hales P.C. 509.)

I concede, that if Miss Anthony voted, knowing that as a woman she had no right to vote, she may properly be convicted, and that if she had dressed herself in men’s apparel, and assumed a man’s name, or resorted to any other artifice to deceive the board of inspectors, the jury might properly regard her claim of right, to be merely colorable, and might, in their judgment, pronounce her guilty of the offence charged, in case the constitution has not secured to her the right she claimed.  All I claim is, that if she voted in perfect good faith, believing that it was her right, she has committed no crime.  An innocent mistake, whether of law or fact, though a wrongful act may be done in pursuance of it, cannot constitute a crime.

[The following cases and authorities were referred to and commented upon by the counsel, as sustaining his positions:  U.S. vs.  Conover, 3 McLean’s Rep. 573; The State vs.  McDonald, 4 Harrington, 555; The State vs.  Homes, 17 Mo. 379; Rex vs.  Hall, 3 C. & P. 409, (S.C. 14 Eng.  C.L.); The Queen vs.  Reed, 1 C. & M. 306. (S.C. 41 Eng.  C.L.); Lancaster’s Case, 3 Leon. 208; Starkie on Ev., Part IV, Vol. 2, p. 828, 3d Am.  Ed.]

The counsel then said, there are some cases which I concede cannot be reconciled with the position which I have endeavoured to maintain, and I am sorry to say that one of them is found in the reports of this State.  As the other cases are referred to in that, and the principle, if they can be said to stand on any principle, is in all of them the same, it will only be incumbent on me to notice that one.  That case is not only irreconcilable with the numerous authorities and the fundamental principles of criminal law to which I have referred, but the enormity of its injustice is sufficient alone to condemn it.  I refer to the case of Hamilton vs.  The People, (57 Barb. 725).  In that case Hamilton had been convicted of a misdemeanor, in having voted at a general election, after having been previously convicted of a felony and sentenced to two years imprisonment