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

1t not only is not denied, but is admitted and
justified, on the ground that the assault
upon the defendant by the deceased was made
with 50 much suddenness, violence and fierce
ness, that there was no means Of escape, with
his life, or without great bodily harm, except
by shooting at. and taking the life of his op-
ponent.
The parties met on the corner at Mann's
store room, on the morning of the first Of Au-
gust last, neither party having seen the other
until they encountered each other face to face.
Some words passed between them that no one
heard, and the import ofwhieh, We are left to
conjecture. Had they been heard and com
municated to us, much of the mystery that
surrounds this part of the case might have
been dispelled. The deceased (Crouse) was
heard to address the defendant with the words
''Mr. Reed, aud thisis all we know of what
was said on that fatal occasion. Grouse was
then seen to take off his coat and hang it up
on the post, and Immediately after to pick up
stones, the defendant moving of, and motion
| ing with his hand to the deceased Just at
this point arises disputed question of fact of
very great consequence in the cause. II is
this: On the one side it is alleged that the pis-
| tol was drawn by the defendant, within the
view of the deceased, and before he picked
up the stones; and on the other side that the
stones were picked up, and one of them
thrown against the person of the defendant
with great violence, and causing severe in
bof, L. ~ Il
The witness producedby the commonwealth
to this particular point is Mr.. Alex Agnew,
who swears that he saw the parties when they
met,-that he heard the deceased say FMr
Reed" that be saw Grouse pull off his coat
and hang it on the post-that he then looked
at the defendant and saw the muzzle of pis-
tol, which he had in his right hand, projecting
an inch or an inch and half past the breast
of his cost;-that Grouse then stopped and
picked up stone in each hand No other
witness either for the commonwealth or for
the defendant saw this-It does not
follow, however, that the statement
of Mr.. Alex. Agnew is false-much less
does it follow that it is willfully false-and
the charge ought not to have been made
Whether hewas mistaken ornotis orthe Jury to
determine-we express no opinion in respect
to it.-Hickok, Lyon, Hutton, De wolf, Col
Hudson, and Harry Holman say they saw
the defendant, when he was struck with the
stone, lift up both hands and they saw no pis
tol in either.-None of the witnesses last
named saw the pistol until it was fired by
defendant and most of them, if we remem
ber Alright, only knew of there beinga pistol at
all by hearing thereportand eeingthe effecto of
itupon the deceased. There were three other
witnesses, Miss Reigart, Miss Molly Knee and
James Reed, brother of the defendant, saw
the pistol, and they sayit was produceafor the
first time when it was fred. This whole trans
action transpifed within very brief space of
time and tits butnatural that different parties
would give different versions of tit is argu-
ed that the conduct of Grouse in watching
the defendant is evidence that There was some
| special reason for it, and this is circum-
stance that you win consider. We do not pro-
pose to discuss these facts-this has been done
by the counsel. That the defendant had a pis-
tol is not disputed. Whenwasi it drawn by him ?
This question you must settle-Ifit was drawn
before the stones were picked up by the de-
ceased, and that was his reason for arming
himself with them, this fact of itself puts an
end to the plea of self defence-Bul if you
come to the conclusion, from the evidence,
thatthe pistolwas not drawn before thestones
were picked up andon of them thrown against
the person of the defendant, there stillremains
for your decision the great question eff self
defence. No man is excused, as we have al
readyssaid, in taking human life IN self de-
fence, until he has shown Il was absolutely
necessary, or that he had reasonable grounds
to believe it to be necessary, in order to save
his own life or protect himself from great
bodily harm You cannot have forgotten the
ties timoay applicable to this point. We pro-
pose the following questions to which you can
apply the evidence: Could the defendant have
retreated before he was struck with stone !?
Could he have retreated afterwards, with safe
ty? Where did he stand when he fired the pis-
tol? How far was he from Grouse? If he
could not have retreated without exposing
his life to increased danger or his person to
greater peril of bodily harm, his plea of self
| defence would be sustained; if he couldhave so
retreated, there is then no excuse for taking
the life of Grouse and his defence fails-and
it viii theE become your duty to determine
the grade of the defendants guilt.
If there was specific intent to take life,
Il 4, 81 l,raeo1c
tol for the purpose of using it, even in case of
quarrel commenced by the deceased, the of
fence would be murder in the first degree. If
there was no specific intent to take life, but
you find that there was malice, as we have al
ready instructed you, it wouldbe murderin the
second degree. But tifthere was no malice, and
the killing was the result of the provocation
given by throwing the stone and striking, the
defendant, who in the heat Of blood and trans
port of passion fired the pistol the offence
would be manslaughter,
The defendants counsel have submitted the
following peints, the answer to which viii
contain the additional instructions it may be
necessary for the court to give to you.
l. Thatif John P. Reed, without any attack
or assault on Jacob Grouse, on the first of
August 1865, was assailed by Jacob Grouse,
and pursued by him, wounded by him,
and was subject by an attempt again
to be wounded, or to encounter