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

Mr.. Purvianee requested the Coui' "
instruct the Jury on the following points;
1st That the jury must be satisfied
bavond reasonable doub Of the guilt
Of the def. ndant, before they are Justl-
fed in rendering verdict OF guilty
cd that if a reasonable doubt exists in
the minds of the jury, it is their duty
to render a verdict OF not guilty.
To the fist point we auswer.-Ne al
firm the law to be as stated therein
ID. That in case Of circumstantial
evidence, every material circumstance
relied on by the Commonwealth, forms
in itself an Independent issue, and the
law requires that each Circumstance
shall be established clearly aud beyond
reasonable doubt TIE circumstances
should, to Il moral certainty, exclud'
every hypothesis but the one proposed
to be proved by the Commonwealth.
IT, the I'd. point we anwer: That every
material circumstance relied On by the
Commonwealth to make out the charge
must be clearly established, beyond a
reasonable doubt, and that, in order to
a conviction OF the prisoner, it ia neces-
sary not only that the circumstances
all concur to show that he committed the
crime, but that they be inconsistent with
any other rational conclusion.
3rd. If the mortal wound were in
flicted-by whomsoever done-under
the belief that it was necessary to save
the life of a friend, it would be homicide
in self defense
To the Sd point, We answer: That
this point is so general and indefinite,
and not applicable, as we comprehend
its language, to this case, that we are
compelled to deoline to answer it.
4th. That the possession of a knife by
the defendant before the commission Of
the homicide, was received for the pur-
pose of showing the defendant had the
means of inaictlng such wounds as those
found on the bodies Of deceased, but
not as fact from which it might be in
ferred that the defendant would have a
tendency to commit the deed.
To the 4th point, We answer IN the
Affirmative.
5th. That the possession of a knife is
not competent to be shown for the pur-
pose of prejudicing the character Of the
defendant, or from which the jury might
infer that the defendant probably did
the act.
To she 9TH point, VIC answer: We
affirm this point so far as to say to you
that proof of possession of the knife by
defendant, was not received for the pur-
pose of efFecting the character of the de-
fendant-but aSother purpose, to wit :
to prove that be had had in his posses
sion knife which, in connection with
the other evidence in the cause, might
tend to establish the charge against the
defen liant.
Mr.. MCandless, for the defendant,
wished the Court to instruct the jury on
the following points:
1st. If the jury believe from all the
facts and evidence in the case, that the
homicide was committed by the defend
ant Cor any one close by) after Oliver
was lying PROSTATE on the floor near the
north room door, having been knocked
down by Cunningham, who is proved to
be a 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 Cunningham was
about to kill Oliver; then the defend
ant, or any one else, inhicting the blow,
it would be excusaole homicide, and the
defendant II ust be acquitted.
To the first point, we answer: AS we
comprehend this point, we will answer ii
in the negative.
2nd. II the jury believe the defend>
ant committed the homicide at any time
during the confict-in the heat of pas
siou-upon this sudden quarrel, it is
manslaughter.
To the I'd point, we answer :. The facts
set out in tAis point are not sufficiently
definite to enable us to answer it definite
ly and properly; but if 1t is inten led
that at the time Oliver was knocked
down by the deceased, and the defend.
ant being at the time party to the CON
fict, and he then in i;eat of passion
inflicted the fatal blow, then we say if he
had received a legal provocation suf-
fcieut to produce passion, and the evi>
dcnce shows the absence Of malice, and
death eusued, it would be manslaughtcr.
3rd If the homicide was committed
by the defendant while the fight was
progressing between Oliver and Cunning
ham, or in any other combat then going
on in the room; if defendant intertered,
from hot blows alone, oecasioned by sees
ing friend attacked by stranger, it is
manslaughter
To the Sd point, we answer: We re-
fuse to affirm this point.
4th. That the jury are the judges both
of the law and the facts.
To the 4th point, VIC answer: We
cannot affirm this point For it is well
settled "when q case is on trial, the great
weight of authority now IS that the ury
are 10 receive, rs binding on their eon>
sciences, the law laid down by the Court
to them in their charge.
This case has been stated in the arcu.
ment tobe one of eircumstantial evidence,
because no one was seen inflictiug the
wound upon the body of the deceased
and much has been said upon the relia-