The true Democrat., 1854-07-12
Xditerature, $gritultmre, Gon1m&rf&, Gau
MORNING, JULY 12, 1854.

terms and there being occasion to resort to such means TOT defense and protection, one kills the other, he IS guilty of this crime.
 But where man in sudden affray is beaten CT as saued m such manner to peril his life, or place him in danger of great bodily harm when there is no other way or escape he has right to kill his adyer- sary and the law calls it justifable homicide-kng in self defense. The law is very tender of human
 life, and therefore hcacide even in self defense is spoken of by English authorities excusable rather than justiiable." And thus the definition of it Given by Lord Bacon, is, "a blameable necessity" Yet though bameable it is necessity, and it excuses and acqults the party. It is described that whereby In sudden brol, or quarrel, man may protect him self from assaults or the like, by killing the one who assaults him. But it must not be used as cloak for revengefu and wicked heart, for explicit ly told that we may " not exercise it, but in cases where sudden and violent suffering would be caused by waiting for the intervention of the law"
 Language cannot be plainer than that of this dis tinguished author, Judge Blackstone. {" And this" he says, Is the doctrine of universal justice, well as municipal law" It is another principle equally well established that except in cases of extraordna- " violence, where it cannot be done without subject ing nm to enormous peril, man must ' retreat to the Wall, or tosome other impeachment which he not pass before he may take the life of his adversary
 Gentlemen shall trouble you with but few more extracts from this any other author. You see in what Justlfabe homicide consists-you see that you have right to kill when you cannot otherwise es- cape death or severe bodily harm but that you must exercise this right only in case of extremity-only
 
 uon where you can no longer defend yourself but by killing. It is not every blow that necessarily gives the right to take life; if the person be not injured the oioWs not severe, and the parties not unequal in physlcal strength or the one who is assaulted may retreat without further harm, the homicide is not justifable
 Cases have been read to you that if man provoke
 contest himself, for the sake of obtaining pretex to carry out the malignant and wicked purpose of his heart and during it, kill his opponent it not excu sable, but Is murder. l think you readily perceive however; that this principle is totally inapplicable here: II A pursue $ with malice, seeking oppor- l tuilty to kll and provoking quarrel that he may do so, carries out his purpose, the act is murder Mir Gibson read to you yesterday case of this kind but here the defendant sought no quarrel-no combat no clfnculty-he sought reconciliation With what Proprlety then do the gentlemen attempt confound III your minds where men are seeking to exercise the malice of wicked and revengeful heart with such an one as this! They have connection what ever.
 It is well-established principle (Wharton,s Ame- l1can Criminal Law. P. 511), that < no words will amount to an assault' and do. 3l3) that no words Will justify an assault" NIT. Ward had made no as saut; It IS true he applied opprobrious words, but tlemen have told you here, and their own witnesses have testified to it. that Mr. Butler was man of cou- rage, who would not receive such language without glVng blow III return. do not complain of them TOT showing that he man of spirit: but I do contend that they have reason to look to the law tor any justification of his conduct He had no rght under the circumstances take redress into his own hands-the principle is laid down in so many words. lie was first in fault-he made the first as saut-W ard was forced back until he could retreat no 1urther-n the literal language of the law he had " been drlven to the wan;'' and there pressed back sary, he shot him.
 NOW, gentlemen, have l not brought this case not only within the principles, but within the exact words of the law relating to justifable homicide? And I nave not done 1t by relying subteties and techni aVa .1o nal principles of self defense
 we are told that where there Is any other probable mode of escape without losing life or receiving seri- s 1us lhJury: man is not justiiab!e in killing. True put am not aware that any such possibility existed here. The prisoner was confined, and beaten as you nave neard.-Campbel was just taking the tongs to give ms assistance ii necessary and Sturgus also was Ill notion' |lll say no more about the extreme de- oly ana 1eeoeness of the accused, for you know it. ana can perceive it. You also know-notwithstand ing the assumption of the prosecution-that Butler was man ot more than ordinary muscular power; thaI He ad been ior years in the habit of practising ooth Ill the gymnasium and of it. those exercises that tend as directly to develop and strengthen the muscles of the arm, as the habitua wiedinr of the biacksmiths hammer.
 The many excellent qualities of the deceased. and Ills Vlrtuous character treey admit deplore his death The i!ltaed circumstances that led to it are all before you That death has been the effect of circumstances unfortunate with out any augmentation or malice on the part of the accused The same circumstances which show that hls hand inflicted the fatal blow show from the na- ture and suddenness of the occasion that there was none ot that malice or wckedness which alone could make II cnme. hls character too pleads like an aigels Volce, against such an irlputaton upon him.
 In his state ot feebleness or irritation he may have naturally overraed the violence and injury with which he was threatened, and the necessity of proecno and defending himself by shooting the deceased. But surely man. Tn such conditiCn is not to be sacrifc- ed for mlSudgment of the exact degree of the ne- cessity which warrants him in such defense
 You will make all just and humane allowances on thls subject iou, sitting here Tn quiet solemn con- slderaton, must yourselves feel some difficulty in de- clng the exact degree of violence with which he was threatened and the lawful extent of the defense which 1t justified How then are you to expect him to decide those questions in the strife and passion of the moment?
 The decision in Tennessee to which vour attention has been called establishes the principle that if man. from good reasons 5eres his life or his person to be in danger, he has the right to kill. He must act up- on the instant not at al-in the heat of passion and conflict, and when his means for observation are limited The real question here is, whether Matt. W ard in his feeble and reduced condition did not an prehend, and that from good reasons that he was in danger? If he did, there was no gut-no crimina- l lity, and he deserves an acQuittal
 The gentlemen for the prosecution have spoken of the declarations of Mr. Butler, on his dying bed Now the inquiries of Dr. Thomson, were made for the purpose Of ascertaining medical fact He de- sired to learn what the position of Butler when he received the shot and Butler replied to him that they were cnched. The arm of Prof. Butler was ralsed and 1t was then found that the probe followed the wound, at least for short distance when before It did not penetrate at a This demonstrates anato- mically, naturally, necessarily, that Butler and ard must have been engaged in combat when the fatal event occurred. Why was the hand of Butler raised if he was not engaged in asuggle! This is the le- gitimate inference from the testimony given by Dr. Thomson
 l But Barlow was present at the time, and while Dr. Thomson engaged in taking out his instruments and preparing to attend to his professo nal duties, he with a curiosity perfectly natural in quired how this had happened A man had been shot down under peculiar circumstances and it was not strange that Barlow should follow him to Col. Harneys residence and ask how it had been brought about. Butler replied: He gave me the lie and I struck him for it; then he shot me-" According to this Butler admitted that he struck the first blow It is true he provoked by the language used; but you have been reminded that neither those nor any other words justify a blow.
 But the counsel for the Commonwealth contend that Butler could never have made those statements simply because Dr. Thomson did not hear them- The Doctor himself, however has told you that there were five or six persons in the room; and you can judge for yourselves whether physician, under such circumstances, when his mind was engaged with his professional duties would be likely to ecollect very i