North Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1850-1852, 1851-12-03

| punish.
The. counsel for the State argued the case with
great ability, and in bold, fearless manner, com
menting upon the conduct of the prisoner, the time
the manner, and the circumstances of the killing
with freedom and severity. No one in similar cir
! cumstances ever performed his duty more ably Oh
more fearessly. 49, &d 81. ,
His Honor, Judge BATTLE, charged the jury sub
I stan;ialiy as follows:
That the Legislature had provided men, who had
made law their study, and who were therefore pre-
sumed understand it better than juries-to instruct
them what the law Isl applicable to each that
came before them-that in civil cases they were bound
to be governed by the law laid down by the
and if they took upon themselves to disregard the in
strucons given them, the court would not permit the
verdict to stand. In criminal cases juries had the
physical power to judge of the law well as of the
facts. but if they do So it upon their own res
possibility. The court would discharge it's duty in
this and tell them what the law was-if they
disregarded it, the responsibility rested With them.
He had no power to control them. After explaining
! to the jury what was murder, and the meaning of
malice, and how murder was mitgated to man.
slaughter, he instructed the jury that the provocaon
set up by the prisoners counsel mitigating the
killing to mansaughter did not have that effect and
that the killing under the circumstances detailed by
the witnesses murder not manslaughter, although
the provocation given to the prisoner was as great
could be given by one man TO another, causing, as
was testified by witness, even lady to forget the
gentleness of her sex, and 10 tell her husband, had
he received such indigRty without resentng it,
she would be tempted to infict the same indignity
upon him.
AS 10 the other defence set up by the prisoners
counsel, if they believed the prisoners mind so
disordered by the indignty offered him by the de-
ceased, from any other cause not to know what
he was doing-or that which he was doing was
crme-and that in this state of frenzy, brought by
the greatest of all indgnities. it admitted
be, he knew not the place were he was the criminal
ty of the he did, and in this state of mind he took
the life of the deceased then the prisoner was not
responsible, and they should render verdict not
guilty. But they must remember that this evidence
came from the prisoner, and it was his duty to satisfy
them that that was his condition.
The jury retired, and after an absence of scarce
five minutes, returned through their foreman, r. V.
Mchaux, verdict of not guilty. The scene which
then took place was deeply affecting. There
applause, but the most profound silence, and there
was not dry eye in the Court House.
For the State-John Woodfn, Esq.
For the Prisoner-Nicholas Wood6n, Esq, Tod
R. Caldwell, Esq. and Gen. ]. G. Bynun.
His Honor, Judge Battle, did not think he could
that the prisoner acquitted upon the last ground
of defence set up by his counsel. and upon consua-
ton with the members of the bar he found that all
concurred with him in opinion.
This is believed to be correct account of the pain
full tragedy. Every means have been taken to rend-
er the facts detailed correct. The account has been
submitted several persons who took full notes of
the testimony, and who took part in the trial, and
corresponds with the notes taken by his Honor. The
position of Judge Battle extremely painful. The
killing was in his presence and within few feet of
him, and the trial only the third day after
wards; but in this in every other occasion in
which he has acted as Judge, he has shown himself
as upright. firm and able Judge. and as pure man
as ever presided in Court of Justice.
1t is hoped that all those papers, parrcr larly in
this State which have noticed this affair, will give
this authentic account insertion. B.
Rutherfordton, Nov. "a, 1851. r.