Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1854-04-22

prisoner must have the advantage OF thht u'"oi.
II the prisoner Is jnstifable in committing any
act of this kind, he must prove it, and tue ey-
donce must be- strong that will justify him. The
circums tances of this case instead of jusiifying
the prisoner, prove that there is no palanon.-
Provoeation will not avail to reduce the crime 10
the second degree Of murder, unless 1t was so
recent that the blood had not had time to
/ cool. Extracts were read from | vol. Rus
| sci on Crime. pages I35. 43i f21 and l4O1
| This is rule of law in all cases, that every
| rational being eontemplates and intends that
/ which is the natural Consequence of the means
be uses The law makes the homicide murder,
whether the malice be express or implied. Tx
tracts of several eases were here read to the jury
showing how far man il justfable in killing UNI
der the heat of passion, or se-de fedend0. The
facts of this these &. eonceiying he
had been injured by b. provoked fresh cause
of offence against him. 1t seems that b. after
| he read the note TO Miss A. thought it his duty
| TO come up and see c. b. came, and one of the
law students says--told him in respectful terms
that he gave his cousin the advice. There was
no proyocation in his manner. The commune
cation was doubtless of an offensive character
| This prompted him to seek satisfaction, in way
not justified by law-by arning himself with
weapons of a most deadly character-a revolver
and also bowie knife, most fatal instrument;
and not content with these, also taking with him
single barrel pistol. His arming himself was
dput utllDtfHlcIy, III uole lnt uhy DtloIt. iho
day on which he sought satisfaction was the Sab
bath; and b. himself had come to church to OBJ
serve it-and had gone there, too, with lady
and with the evident purpose of returning and
not expecting difficulty; as he thought the mat
ter was settled. c. goes to church, places him
self IN the yestibule, and when b. handed the
lady to the door, and turned round tapped him
on the shoulder and asked him to walk out
They went out, and seen to turn up the
cross street towards McClelland' s,where the fatal
tragedy occurred. There is mystery about the
murder, and great discrepancy i'll the different
theories. But if there is mystery, the prisoner is
to blame. On him rests the responsibility 1t
Is not the commonwealth duty to remove it
The prisoner sought the interview after night,
when no eye could see him. fully armed; and he
must remove all mystery, or bear the response
biity. As to the particulars of the fight we
know but little. Massie Taylor and Kirkpatrick
saw or heard portions of it. NJ heard a scuffle,
and sounds resembling those made by switch
or cowhde. The sounds ceased the struggle
became more violent, and, on looking round, he
saw them on the ground near the pavement; their
heads close together. After they rose, he saw
one push the other from him, when he fell heavily
to the ground. c. must have seen him fall; for
| Taylor testified that he him looking III that
direction. He must have known he had kill him,
or at least very seriously injured him, as he fell
TO the ground, and there lay still. If the last
pool of blood which has been brought to your
notice really existed, the knife must have been
used before the parties fell. But of this you are
the Judges (Some extracts from Stdrkie En-
| idence were here read, to show the amount of ev-
| idence necessary, where that evidence is circum-
stantial; and also extracts from TdyiorS Medical
Jurisprudence, as to the length of time person
could live after wound in the neck, such b..
received, has been intieted.) From these cases
1t seems that persons still more fatally wounded
| thnn Il. have lived n ISL lprablp time and with
strength sufficient to walk considerable dis
tance. The witnesses who testified to seeing
the third pool no doubt have testified to what
they are convinced they Their testimony
is positive. Other witnesses have testified, that,
after examining the ground carefully to their
theory of the fight, they could find no trace of
blood. The testimony of these is of negative
character. As general rule negative testimo-
ny cannot be weighed against positive testimony.
The witnesses who testify to these conflicting
statements are of the highest character, and UNI
impeachable Is the existence of the third stain
of blood established? 1t is not for me to answer
this question, but for you. You must decide all
the matters of fact. The stick was found near
the scales. This may throw some light upon the
matter This meeting was sought for by G. him
self, and wherever man brings himself into q
difficulty, he cannot be justified in taking advan-
tage OF ms own wrong, to deprive his fell
being of life. The right of self defence was
to ward off slight injuries; and though man is
the sole Judge when he is in danger OF his life, on
OF great bodily injury, yet is he responsible if he
does not judge correctly, and thereby destroys
the life of another. (Apextraot from | vol. Rus
sell on Crime 5431 do not think you can come
to the conclusion that this is case of UNSUITABLE
self defence. Who made the attack b. had
not been injured, and had no redress TO ask c.
went to seek redress and he went armed. Why
did he go where no person could witness the re-
dress in public 1t is strange that he should
seek redress at night, when the insult had been
given in public and the redress ought to have
been had in the same place. The presumption is
that c. commenced the attack. Provoking an
attack will not justify the use of arms No one
should ever be allowed to take advantage of his
own wrong. There is doubt that the dispari
ty IN size was very great between b. and the
prisoner, and that he was not match for b. in
those arms the God of nature provided him with.
He refused to confne himself alone to the use of
his stick, for he was not equal to b. even with
the aid of a stick. What redress then did he
seek To call him in the dark The exigencv
was brought ON himself b. had no expectation
ofan assault. Langhorne had told Humes c. had
said the affair was not done with but Humes
states he did not tell b. The prisoners own
statements have been admitted. In all such ca
SEES, 1t is dangerous for the prisoner for if one of
his statements are shown to be untrue, the whole
must be thrown out. 1t is proven the prisoner
states he had no intention of killing b.. and that
he manifested great feeling when informed he had
done so. But there are several things which
tend to disproye this statement. The prisoner
turned and looked in the direction of b., and
must have seen him fall, and must have known