Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1855-06-07
Cbe C5lasgo(u Timrs.
From the Randolph Citizen.
State VS.. Etheldred HAYS.

We present our readers this week the /.
Instructions of Judge HALL to the jury, in
this important murder trial. They may
by upon their being correct, as we made a
careful comparison Of our copy with the
original at the Clerks Office:
INsTpUcTrnNs FOR THE STATE.
!. IT, in the month of March, 1854, and
in Howard County, the defendant wiIully,
deliberately and premcdiately killed John
w. Brown, with a spade, the jury must
find hun guilty Of murder in the frrt de-
gree.
2. II the killing was done as stated in
the first instruction, it is no excuse that
Tie defendant was intoxicated, or under the
influence Of liquor at the time; and the kill
ing in such case is still murder in the first
dpgree-ior it is settled principle of the
law that drunkenness is 10 excuse for
crime.
3. If the defendant, with spade in his
hand, took a position near Brown, and grad
ually approached him, and pushed him, for
the purpose Of inducing an alteration and
getting a chance to kill him, and commenced
raising his spade at the same time Brown
commenced drawing his pistol, and then
struck him and killed him, he is guilty Of
murder in the first degree; and in such case,
it would be no defence even if the evidence
showed that Brown drew his pistol before
defendant commenced raising his spade; for
the law will not permit a man thus to in
duce provocation and SO take advantage
of it.
4. In considering what deienlcut said
after the fatal act, the jury must consider it
all together. He is entitled to the benefit
of what he said for himself if true, as the
State is OF anything he said against himself
IN any conversation proved by the State.--
What he said against himself the law pre-
sumes to be true because against himself;
but what he said for himself the jury are
! not bound to believe, because said in d con-
ver,ation proved by the State. They may
believe or dlsbeIeve it, as it is shown 10 be
true or false by the evidence in the case.
5. They cannot acquit upon mere posi-
bic doubt. Ii must be reasonable doubt.
6. Although the jury may believe from
the evidence that Brown was attempting TO
draw lis pistol, or had it drawn AT the time
Hays struck him, and that Hays lie or per-
son was in immediate danger, yet if they
further believe that Hays Intentionally
brought Oh the difficulty for the purpose q
killing Brown, lie is still guilty Of murder
in the first degree.
T. The deliberation and prcmcditution
necessary to constitute murder in the first
degree may be inferred from the circumS'an-
ces connected with the killing, and il they
existed for moment, as well as an hour or
day before the killing, it is sufficient.
8. If defendant with spade in his hand,
took a position near Brown, and gradually
approached him, and pushed him as testified
to by Davis, and he did this for the pur-
pose Of inducing an alteration as an eX.
cuse for killing him, and did kill him viii
the spade, then, although Brown drew hi,
pistol at the time Hays raised his spade
as testified to by Davis, or even before Hays
commenced raising hIs spade, he is guilt!
of murder in the first degree.
0. II Hays with a spade in his hand, tool
,...;+;,,, ,,c,,. prcu.r r,,l ,,r,1roll,- ,,
preached him, and pushed him in such ;
manner as to give Brown reasonable caus,
; TO opprehend design on the part of Hay
to do him some great personal injury, and Il
apprehepd that there was immediate DANCE
OF such design being accomplished, then h,
had n right to draw his pistol, and even t.
kill Hays; and if Hays under such circum
: ! stances killed Brown, he cannot be acquit
d ted.
10. If Hays killed Brown with a spade
the law presumes it is murder in the ab
il scnce Of proof to the contrary, and it devclye
upon the defendant TO show from the evi
dence in the cause, 10 the reasonable salts
faction Of the jury, that he was guilty Of
y less crime, or acted in sell-delence.
= INSTRUCTIONS FOR DryEHoAHr.
= If Hays, in the lawful defence of his ow
Il person, struck and killed Brown who wa
at the time attempting to draw from hi
= pocket loaded pistol to shoot Hays, or
y HIM some great personal injury, and ther
( was immediate danger of such injury bein
7 accomplished, then Hays had a right t
IS strike Brown in the necessary defence {
himself; unless they believe that Hays wit
4 a design of killing Brown or doing him som
great injury, sought the difficulty, and pre-
l. voked Brown 10 draw his pistol.
' If the jury find from the evidence tn,
a