Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1866-04-20
Mr. Shaw resumed

I Gentlemen Of the Jury, this is O. l..ferent cls
from the last Cu. There is ID question herr
who did the deed, but rather whether the Pc
spoudeut did 10 under justiiahie Circumstances
/ call your attention first 90 the law that the
law presumes malice ia killing with deadly wta-
pom. In this case Faulkner Deliberately point
ed the gun and fired, after having given threats
Of shooting L. Is, then. murder, unless done
under provocation Of blows; when So done, iu
passion. il is mauslaughter
The defence will probably claim that the act
was done in seif-deftuce.
Mr. Shaw here cited authorities o. Shows
what Is necessary 20 constitute q succs sssul
plea Of sclf-dcieuce. He must have exhaust
ed all means Of escape. mere tresTa-s 90
lands or buIldin-- does not Justify the taking
OF life. nor rushing uY with sticks " Len
the respondent was safe m bis own house.
Mr.. Shaw went On to recount the evidence
tending 20 show that there was nothing In Con-
ly's conduct to justify the taking Of his life.
Our theory is that the whole affair was "a
short one rot noisy one. Mrs. Dinnin heard
no noise till Just before the shot was hreI. Tie
defence clam noise confusion, throwing Of sticks
singing, threats, angry words Sc.
Wall sWears il was only ten OF fifteen. minutes
after the men passed til the gun was f-ei
Mrs. Dinnin sWears the streets were uuusual-
y still It Is impossible that the attention q
other witnesses should not have been callei. Il
the affair was 50 long and noisy as the children
testify.
II then Quirk's story IS true. you must find
this man guilty Of murder the only act Of az
erosion by Conly, the kick uron tie house dill
not justify IL. Can il be believed that the little
boy after running across the street that dark
night could have seen anything further He
now tells quite a different story from that be-
fore the Justice. He then said il was so dark
he couldn't SEE when be rsn across the street
There Is no proof that Comfy threw the piece Of
plank, the boy could not have seen him raise it
to throw even; the little stick was not foun, til
Afterwards, and may naturally and probably
have been brought b. some one Of the crowd
who came there presently. Il IS shown that
there could not have bsen any such striking on
the door as % produce such marks as are spoken
Of; and such marks not uncommon Oh old build
Ings. No one testhes as % any blows on the
door; if there were any such they must have
been heard. The latch may well have been
bent by the kick which Comfy gave 10 the door,
aud was an injury which didn't prevent the
shutting and locking ofthe door that night
The only way you can reduce this offence to
manslaughter Is By believing that q stick was
thrown in previously and bit Faulkner. Vow
If thrown by man in full health aud strength
would It have made only such slight marks as
are testified TO on Faulkner's face. QuIrk tes-
tIhes that it was thrown only just as the run
was fired.
You cannot find that it vas reasonably nec.s-
sary for Faulkner to thrus; out and fire this
gun. he was safe in his house, and no attemut
10 enter his house Is shown, or blow given ex
cept the one kick. Was his life in DANGER did
be receive any injury while his door was sbut7
tie could have remained in his house. It was not
necessary for him to 20 out and attack Comfy.
No such practice can be allowed 10 be iustlfa-
be in such case
Evidence as to character is Of little worth As
with that q witnesses on the srot
Conly might have been quarrelsome but didn't
show much Of it here, and disposition can
have no bearing. unless it be shown that
Faulkner knew it and had reason 10 fear. there
fore, shall leave the matter in your hands.
confident that you, in justice, tempered with
nat mercy due in every case, will bring in such
Verdi't as you can justify to yourselves and to
your God