Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1853-07-02

sell from the threatened injury, and be NAV
do so, although il may afterwards turn out
that the appearances Of danger 10 himself
were false. But this principle will not ;us,ifv
one in using pistol where be is only attacked
with the naked hand He may lawfully use
sufficient force to repel his assallant Altbo'
a party when attacked is not obliged to run.
still If the combat can be avoided, or when
after it is commenced the party can withdraw
from It in safety without killing his adversary,
1t is his duty to do so. Again, in order to
justify killing in self defence, the combat must
not have been one of the defendants own
seeking and ne must not have put hmoelf in
tue way OF being assaulted, in order that
wnen assaulted and hard pressed he might
take the life of his assailant
The jury IN this case will carefully exam
Inc what the facts were and under what cir
cumstances the pistol was discharged. Ihaye
stated the jury that under certain circum-
stances man may be justified in dischareinc
a pistol and killing his assailant. But it does
not follow that man may lawfully discharge
a pistol, when attack is threatened amongst
crowd of innocent persons. And if he docs
so, and kills an innocent man, it will be at
least manslaughter.
| Under what circumstances was Emanuel
Elwanger there? Was he an innocent man,
pursuing his lawful business and where he
had right to be? Was the pistol discharC-
ed at an innocent man? Was it presented at
person attacking, or was it pointed 10 an
another direction? Did he discharge it in
discriminatory at whosoever might be within
its range, or did he discharge it at some par
ticular person, and if so, whom? Was the
defendant attacked at all at the time the pis-
tol was discharged, or was he attacked imme-
6iately afterwards? Was the defendant in
great or supposed danger of the loss of his
own life, or great bodily harm at the time he
discharged the pistol? And did he discharge
it at his assailant in self defence, or did he
discharge it indiscriminstely into the crowd,
with reckless disregard of human life let it
hit wherever it might? The jury will care
fully examine all these questions, and such
others as may be suggested to your minds
1t is not my province to say what the facts
are, or even intimate any opinion upon the
facts Before you can find the defendant
guilty Of either degree of crime, you should
be satisfied of his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt What l mean by a reasonable doubt"
! is, an honest uncertainty existing in the
minds of a candid, impartial, digent jury, af-
ter full and careful consideration of all the
testimony, with a single eye to the ascertain
ment of the truth, irrespective of the conse-
qucnces of their verdict. 1t is not mere
speculative doubt started in the mind to furn-
ish pretext for avoiding disagreeable YER
dict. Such doubt is regarded in law as
merely captious."
Ifyou find the defendant guilty of either
degree of crime, you will specify which. In
case you acquit him entirely, your verdict
will be general one of mot guilty.,
After an absence of about hours the ju-
ry returned verdict of "guilty of manslaugh-
ter" and recommended the defendant to the
mercy of the court.
The sentence of the Court was three years
imprisonment in the Penitentiary.