Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1865-12-01


which he previously sustained, |
which result might probably have proved fa- |
tai.
7. That if the jury have any doubt inregard
to the act being an act in elfdefence, they are
bound to acquit him. Thatwhen the jury disa-
gree: the very disagreement implies doubt,
and should lead to an aequittal.
8. In case Of reasonable doubt as 10 the
guilt of the accused, evidence of previous
good character is conclusive in his favor
8. And character is always to be taken in
to the consideration Of the jury as a fact, in
making up the verdict.
l. To this point we say that if the jury be-
6eve thai the assault was commenced by the
deceased with such suddenness, violence and
ferceness, and that it was of such charac-
ter as threatened the life of the defendant or
great bodily harm to his person, and left
him 40 chance Of retreat, or any other means
of escape, he would be excused in taking the
life of his adversary.
2. In the second point we say the mutual
threats indulged in by both parties win not
vary the circumstances attending the occur
renee on the day of the shooting, or affect the
defendants right of self defence.
Threats made by defendant might have
som ething to do with the use of deadly
weapon, or explanation Of the purpose for
which he carried it. Threats made by the
deceased are entitled to consideration on
the defendants apprehension of danger from
the assault of his opponent; still, if he had
the opportunity to retreat and did not avail
himself of it, he is not excused for killing
the deceased.
and 5. We answer the third and fifth
points by saying that the positions assumed are
but repetition in another form, ofthe opin-
ions we have already expressed as to the right
of self defence.
4. To the fourth point we answer that it is
too indefinite to be submitted to the jury as
legal proposition. We have already said that
if the pistol was drawn before the stones were
picked up and thrown by the deceased, the
plea of self defence could not be sustained
Whether the pursuit of the defendant by
Grouse afterwards was conducted in a manner
that authorized the killing of the latter for
the protection Of the life of the accused, is a
question to be settled by the jury from the
evidence, according to theinstructions we have
already given.
6. If the facts assumed in this point are
found by the jury, aud they believe, in addi-
tion thereto, that the defendant could not
otherwise have avoided the threatened mis-
chief, he was not bound to await the second
assault.
7. We cannot instruct the jury as desired
on this point. Where one man kills another
by the use of deadly weapon, the law infers
malice and in order to extenuate the offence
and reduce it to manslaughter, or homicide in
self defence, it is incumbent on the accused
to prove to the satisfaction of the jury the
existence of the edenuating facts and cir
cumstances.
The next prop osition in this point has no
support that we know of except a theory of
Judge Wilson as contained in one of his lee
lures. He was very distinguished lawyer
but this doctrine of his has never been recog-
nizedassound law by anycourt in any country.
8. This point we affirm.
Q. On the subject referred to in this point
we adopt the language of the court of oyer
and terminer in the case the commonwealth
VS.. Fitzpatrick 4 Casey 2OO) and read it as
part of o ur charge.
"The evidence proves the defendant TO have
borne an excellent reputation. Originally,
evidence of good character was not allowed
to go to the jury, when there was positive
proof of the commission of an offence; for if
one was seen to commit murder with deib-
Grafton, although he had borne an irreproach-
able character, he must yet be guilty. The
rule of law in this state, however, permits ey-
idence of good character to be submitted to
the jury in every case of homicide, no matter
what may be the other testimony in the case.
But when a doubt suggests itself to your
minds, as to the prisoners guilt, upon the
facts of the case, as presented by the evidence
the law casts the whole weight of the prison
ers good character in merey's scale, and set
ties the question in favor of the accused
What then is a doubt? 1t is not sufficient for
the prosecutor to establish probability, the
evidence must establish the truth, not reas
enable certainty; it must convince and direct
the understanding, and satisfy the reason.and
Judgment of those who are bound to act con-
sistently upon. it. A doubt, such as the law
recognizes, is not igment of the imagina-
ton, but something, which, upon candid
and conscientious examination of the evil
dence in the case, must lead man of COM
mon sense, if he were dealing with the ordi-
nary business of life, and in his own affairs,
seriously to pause before coming to a couclu-
sion. If such doubt exists in this case the
prisoner is entitled to the benefit of il 2
We have thus endeavored TO lay before you
the principles of law applicable to this impor-
tant cause, which, it is your duty to take from
the court: and the more especially, as the de-
fendant has the right to except to any decis-
ion we may pronounce, and have the same
reviewed by the Supreme Court.
We conclude this charge with single word
of admonition, 1t is not to be cone ealed
that the fatal affair we are now investigating,
has, in some measure, grown out of the great
rebellion that so recently threatened the sub
version of the government. Differences of
opinion have divided men and arrayed them
on opposite sides of the controversy, and
II