Newspaper stories from the good old days say the darndest things. This time on journalism’s way-back machine: an 1870’s defense attorney argues that a man can’t be held responsible for killing his estranged wife’s lover—-because, let’s be honest, she was kind of a ho.

This Week In Sexist History:

So, this “McFarland” guy was kind of pissed that his wife up and left him to become an actress and hang out with some “Richardson” dude. So he did what any husband would do: He fucking shot Richardson! To death. Thankfully, McFarland has got fancy olde-tyme defense lawyer John Graham on his side, who is like Atticus Finch meets Jack McCoy, except for jealous 1870’s douchebags:

We laughed. We cried. We wanted to fuck him. In this four-hour grandstand, all Graham had to prove was that his client, McFarland, was insane when he shot his wife’s lover point-blank. Graham gets preeeeeetty creative, and then—-get this—-ends the oration with “tears running down his [own] cheeks”(!) Let’s see how Graham argues so hard for murdering adulterers that he makes himself cry:

—-
McFarland Is Crazy Because His Wife Thinks She’s Too Good For Him:

—-
He’s Crazy, But Even If He Wasn’t Crazy, Other Dudes Your Wife Had Sex With Deserve to Die Anyway:

—-
He’s Crazy, But He’s Not A Fucking Coward!

—-
He’s Crazy Because She Tried to Make A Life For Herself As An Actress, And She Sucked At It:

P.S.: She was an “abortion” on the stage? They had the sweetest insults in the 1870’s!

—-
He’s Crazy Because Only A Crazy Man Would Stand Idly By While His Wife Cuckolds Him. Wait, Doesn’t That Mean That He’s Not Crazy?Whatever: