American citizen. [volume] (Butler, Butler County, Pa.) 1863-1872, 1867-04-17
MUM Der IS

iNasoH VI soule wall, or o.her lmpedlment
to his retreat; or, far as the sudden IT.
tack or ferceness of the assault would
permit him. If it appear, however, that
the conflict was in any way premeditated
by the defendant, the defence can nc loa-
| ger be used. Ana, as | have said, it
must be proven the assault on him was
perilous in the extreme. There may be
cases where the assault may have been so
herce as not to allow time to retreat
step without manifest danger of his life,
or other enormous bodily harm and then,
IN his defence, if there be no other way
ht sdetRg his own life, he may kill his
assalant instantly. An attack, provoked
or renewed by the defendant, will be. no
defence. Therefore, if he will provoke
an attack the law will not shild him un,
der the plea of necessity, should he kill.
An instance is given, as, ''where In the
course of quarrel, the prisoner was geu-
acad by the deceased whose Strength was
greater than his own, with brickbat.
and could have escaped by flight, but not
choosing to do so, turned round and NOR
tally wounded his assailant with dagger
which he had concealed on his porson
it was held manslaughtey,P! ~
This necessity ceases to exist when tho
defendant, though originally in iminent
danger, escapes, arms himself with a
dangerous weapon-returns and stays his
antagonist. The plea Of self defence
rests on the natural right every man has
to protect his own life against the unlaw-
full attack upon 1t BY another If, how>
ever, when he is secure from danger bf
going away or retreating from his-assal-
ant, if he voluntarily return and renew
the combat, it could not be pretended ho
is acting in defence of his own life against
inevitable destruction.
And, gentlemen, this right of protec.
| ton, with the same limitations as those
gave just now, extends to o'master and ser
| want to parent and child, husband and
wite-z-and, in defence of each other res.
pectively, are excused by reason of tho
relation each stands to the other; and
| the law humanely treats the act IS if 10
defence Of tive party himself. But the
principles have just explained d. aob
extend to persons not standing in the
same relation. 1t ittrue that, where an
attempt is made to burn your house, or
to break into your house burglarionsly,
you, or any Of your famify-or even a
ledger in your house-may lawfully kill
the assailant for the preventing the mis-
chief intended. In such case the party
killed was engaged in ting commission of
the crime of arson or burglary, which are
among the highest grade of offences, next
TO murder; and; therefore, he may be re-
sisted even unto death. tr ~
If two men fall out and quarrel. and
thhd person (who had not any quar-
rely interfere in revenge of his friend,
and strike the other man, Of which stroke
he died this would be manslaughter,
because it happened Of sudden manner
in revenge of his friend. But it must
be intended that the two men who fell
out must be fighting together at the time
he struck the fatal hlow-for, if words
had only passed between them it would
have been murder for there must be
open affray ora striving; being such a
provocation to one person to meddle with
an injury done to another as will lessen
the offence to maus!aughter If the man
is killed by the person so meddling-
where third party interferes from hot
blood alone and Kills one of The oombat>
tants. this is manslaughter If'hoaeyer,
in anticipation Of difficulty, and with
malice in his heart, he deliberately form
cd the design IL case there should be an
afray between combatdhtS engaged there
to Interfere, and take the life of one of the
combatan nts-whcther he did il secretly
with knife, or openly with some other
deadly weapon Che himself not being at
Tackled By any one and he there with
the weapon, took life, it would be murder
in the fast degree. If, however, his in
tention was not to take life, but to do
bodily harm, it would be murder in the
second degree.
The following technical points were sub
mitted by Mr.. Thompson, counsel, for
defendant, and the Court requested to in
struct the jury:
1st That the time and place. of the
homicide are material averments, and
must be- proved as laid in the indictr ent.
I'd The day on which the deceased
| died Of the alleged mortal wound, must
be averred and proved as averred.
To the first and second points We
answer: Time and place must be at
tached to- every material ayerment. But
place is sufficiently described if laid in
the county, without specifying the par.
.iculaF spot where the offence was com
mitted. The time Of committing the
offence may be laid oa any day previous
to the finding of bill. and where time
does not enter into tho natufe or essence
of the offence Gas in this case) and proof
of the facts of the blow struck and death
cnsue anterior to the finding Of the bill,
within year before that period, it is
sufficient
Sd. That if the jury find that ths said
Sidney b. Cunningham received the
mortal wound on the Gath day of De-
ccmber, A. D 1896, but did not die that
| day, but that be languished; and, lam
gushing, died on The 25th day of the
same month the defendant cannot be
convicted under this indictment.
4th. That the phrass laid iu the in
1:..-...s. q 40, ~, ,yfI n r. - r., cams that