Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1860-12-05
Trial Ct Klingensmith.

witnesses subpGnasd on part of defence hav-
ing been examined. J.. d. Cox oJencd the
argument for the State. and was followed
by Hutchins and Forrist for defence, and
Mr.. Tuttlc making the closing argument
for the State. The case was given to the
jury in the following charge in substance:
The Judge stated that the Indictment
charges an unlawful assault, unlawful
w~ounding. unlawful killing and murder;
that under this indictment the prisoner
could be found guilty of assault and bat
terry only. or manslaughter only. murder
in the ID degree only or murder in the lst
degree, according as the evidence and law
should warrant. That in order to find the
prisoner guilty Of murder in the list degree,
It was necessary to find, an actual killing
by defendants own act, an unlawful xii
ling, rurpOsely killing. and q killing of
deliberate and preBlediiated malice. Does
the evidence show that prisoner actually
killed Reeves; did he kill him u,luarfuHy;
or did he kill him by accident or mishap,
or in self-@efenoe against imminent bodily
harm? If prisoner unlawfully stabbed
and killed Reeves, did he 10 it purposely7
The purpose and intent is an essential
Ingredient of murder in either the LIST or
End degree. Does prisoners acts and say
lngs shortly before. at and after the death
of Reeves show an intent to kill? The
State, by its counsel, insists that the cir
cumstances. viz the condition of defend
ant, his locality, his being stripped, his
preparation by knife, the name Of the
assault, the place in the body stabbed, the
force of the stab, the sayings CT the defend
ant, just Before, his sayings and conduct
just after and his fight, clearly proves the
intent to kill Reeves. The counsel of de-
PENDANT, insists, that the proof is not GER
tain, reliable Or creditable, as to any
claimed circumstances, act, fact or saying;
that there was no grudgc, or provOcatiou
shown to exist for an intent; that the par
ties were all drunk or intoxicated, 50 as
not to know what was being done, OF SO
infamcd and crazed with intoxication as
not to have any reflection or purpose be-
yond a mere mad or drunk melee; that the
stab, If made by defendant intelligently
and intentionally as a stab, was not made
with intent or design to kill, but merely
to wousd5 that tie location of the wound
shows a want Of intent to kill; that if such
an inten: existed he would have aimed his
blow at a knoacR vital part of the body,
he would have aimed higher up; that he
struck below merely to wound, and tC
avoid killing, but in doing so, he accidcn-
tally cut an artery, the locality of which was
unknown to him and to people generally,
that the wound being in the groin, medical
evidence proves. that a stab in that region
was not in general experience of common
men, or of defendant. fatal or naturally OF
ordinarily calculated to produce death
and insists, that in defendants opportunity,
his stab that low down, was proof that hC
did not intend to kill, but merely to wound
that the vital artery was cut Unexpectedly
to defendant, and death caused u~ninten.
tionally.
The defendants counsel. insists that il
defendant meant to kill, he would natur.
ally and readily. as lie easily could. have
plunged his knife into the body Of Reeves
higher up, and not reached down below
the main vital body. Now gentlemen, yer
will carefully weigh the established and
crcditable facts and circumstances on thi.
point and see how it is.
Did defendant stab, where he did, and
as lie did, with intent to kill Reeves p
Does the proof and circumstances satisfy
you clearly and beyond the existence of 3
reasonable doubt, that defendant stabbed
with intent to kill, and not with intent tt
wound merely?
If he did not with intent to kill, clearly:
then you cannot find him guilty ofmurdei
in either degree.
II you are convinced clearly, that defen.
dant stabbed Reeves with intent to kill
then 60 further and find whether be die
so maliciously. Malice, in its genera.
commOn ~acceptatinn. signifies cnmity Of
heart, malevolencc-disposition to injurt
others without cause, from mere persona.
qualification or spirit of revenge, unprOyok.
ed malignity, or spite. Malice, in Law
means a disposition to do another a hurt
or injury withsut lawful authority or ex.
cuse. An act injurious to another is lie.
gally malicious, if done knowingly. purpose
ly and without legal authority, justification
or excuse. An injury to the person, sucl
as assault, battery, wounding or killing
is legally malicious, if done purposely by
one having sanity and intelligence enough
to know right from wrong, and being a
free agent and responsible fer his acts. and
done with in ent to injure and without any
legal excuse, justification or authority.
Malice implies turpitude of mind and
heart, evil disposition; TecklcssncsS of the
rights of others.
In regard to taking life, it means reck-
l~essncss of life, of social duty, in that res
pect, of extreme turpitude and malignity
of disposition.
Malice Is either express or implied FROM
circumstances. 1t is express where one
uttCAo VI SlNCo hCHt III MOIuS " HIS ChlI
intent and disposition towards another
1t is implied without any words, from acts
and circumstances, where these show an
evil intent and disposition in their nature,
kind, appearance and result.
The words malice, or maliciously. may
have been intended, in the sections of the
statute, in question, to supply the lace.
to some extent, of the word unlawful,
which is not used in this statute. Where
a killing is done intelligently, that is done
knowingly by a sane person, done purpose
ly, done without any authority of law,
and without accident, mistake or self dc
sence, it would seem necessarily to be i'm
piled that it was malicious. You must be
satisfied from all the proof, that malice
accompanied the intent to kill, if there
was such an intent If you are not clear
~ satisfied that he had malice towards
Reeves. that he stabbed at him purposely