American citizen. [volume] (Butler, Butler County, Pa.) 1863-1872, 1867-04-10

usu III fehuerinS verdict Ot guilty
aud that if reasonable doubt exists in
the minds of the jury, it is their duty
to render verdict of not guilty.
I'd. That Ia case of ciroumstantial
evidence, every material circumstance
relied on by the Common wealth, forms
in itself an independent issue, and the
law requires that each circumstance
shall be established clearly and beyond
a reasonable doubt. The circumstances
should, to a moral certainty, exclude
every hypothesis but the one proposed
to be proved by the Comm onwealth.
3rd. If the mortal wonhd were in.
ficted-by wh6msoeyer doneZunder
the belief that it was necessary to save
the life of d friend, it would be'homicide
in self defense ''tEia.ga'
4th. That the possession of knife by
the defendant before the commission Of
the homicide, was received for the pur-
pose of showing the defendant had the
means of infictlng such wounds as those
found on the bodies of deceased, but
not as fact from which it might be in
feIred that the defendant would have a
tendency to commit the deed.
9th. That the possession of a knife is
not competent to be shown for the pur-
pose of prejudicing the character oi the
defendant, OF from which the jury might
infer that the defendant probably did
the act
Mr.. Purviance referred to numerous
authorities in support of his points, and
especially with reference to circuuistau>
tial evidence.
He descantsd eloquently and clearly,
upon the EVIDENCE. Said the jury were
called upon here to say what unt one sin
gle witness for the Commonwealth, on
their oaths, could say they were asked
to say who stabbed Cunningham. No
witness ogt of Some fifty examined, could
say who struck the fatal blow. Nor can
you, gentlemen, tell who struck the blow.
If 1t were done under the circumstances
of self-defenee, or protection of proper
~ and Of individuals, or in the heat of
passion, it could not be murder; but
might be justifable. a chain OF cir,
cumstapces must be qnbrokea, and must
preclude the possibility that the stabbing.
could have been done in any other man
ner, or by any other person than the one
charged. He descanted upon the trouble
these men occasoned their size, their
threats, their commencing the fight; all
tended to alarm and anger those WIN
were in the party, and who kept the
house. He remarked en- the conduct of
the defendant after the fight. He did
not fee away, but stayed and rendered
all the assistance in his power AZ he
was to be followed by his colleagues he
would not make lengthy comment Or
the evidence. ...
Mr.. M'Candless, for the defe ndant,
wished the Court to instruct the jury on
the follow ng points:
lst. If the jury believe from all the
facts and evidence in the case, that the
homicide vas committed By the defend
ant (or any one close by) after. Oliver
was lying PROSTATE on the aoor near the
north room door, having been knocked |
ioUn by Cunningham, who is proved to
be man of great strength, and while
cunningham had chair drawn to strike
Oliver; and the defendant believed. and
had reason to believe from all the facts
surrounding him, that Cunning ham was
about to kill Oliver; then the defend
INT, or any one else, inflicting the blow,
t would be exctsapfe homicide, and the
defendant NJ ust be acquitted.
End. If the jury believe the defend>
mt committed the homicide at any time
Turing the confict--in the heat Of pas
this sudden quarrel, it is
nanslaughter. - ' ~
Bird. If the homicide was committed
y the defendant while the Fight was
between Oliver and Cunning
lam, or in any other combat then going
n in the room if defendant interfered,
rom hot bloss alone, occasioned by sees
ng friend attacked by stranger, it is
ianslaughter. .
4th' That the jury are the judges both
f the law and the facts.
The following technical points were SUBJ
lifted by Mr.. Thompson, counsel for
efeudant, and the Court requested to in-
truct the jury:
list. That the time and place of the
omicide are material averinents, and
lust be proved as laid in the indictu: ent.
I'd. The day on which the deceased
led of the alleged mortal wound, mpst
averred apd proved as avefred.
Sd. That if the jury find that the said !
idney b. Cunningham received the
lortal wound on the oath day of De-
,mber, A. ID 1866, but-did" not die that
ay, but that he languished aud, Ian
uishing, died on the 18th day of The .
Ime month the defendant cannot lie
'nvicted under this indictment.
4th. That che phrase laid in the in
ctment Instantly did die" means that
ers was no perceptible Or apprecieble
tervention Of time, between the time !
lie wound was inflicted and the death it !
lused-tbat death followed tie stroke
lat produced it instantly--at tn Q same
stant--without the lapse of time. q
9th. That if the deceased lived an {
,ur, or about one hour, after he rece
the mortal wound, he did not instant =
die, and the defendant would be ac
litted.
Mr Mccarthy. for defendant, address .
the jury at considerable length, very q
rnestly and eloquently recat titulating f