The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1869-06-22

4.
deadly weapon i'll a wrongful killing, or
by any other attending circumstances
denoting a heart regardless Of social
duty and fatally bent On mischief. There
fore to reduce the crime below murder
in ths second degree, the wrongful and
wilful killing being established, proof
mist he presented Of 4 kind and force
sufficient to overcome the legal Pre-
sumption that malice existed at the time.
II you are satisfied from the testimo
ny that there was an absence of malice,
the crime, if any has beer committed, is
manslaughter.
And if it is further proven to your sat
isfaction. i'll this case. that the accused
had reasonable ground to believe that
there was design to destroy his life, or
commit any felony upon his person, the
killing Of the aSsalant is cXcusable, al
though it shoald afterward appear that
no felony was intended, If the circum-
stances are such that after unreasonable
caution, the party suspects that felony
is about to be committed, he will be JUS
tifed. It is not justifable, however, if
the perpetrator commits the homicide
rccklessiy, without reasonable grounds
for his suspicion, or acting from COW
ardlce
Tho belief of the defendant that a crime
or in legal pariance felony is about to
be committed, or in imminent danger of
being committed, must be a reasonable
belief, founded upon sufficient facts and
circumstances as presented to him at The
The existence of this belief, or reasona-
bic crumbs for its existence must be es-
talShed atiirmatiyely. 1t is not sufficient
that the defence raise 4 reasonable doubt
of its absence or tbatit was merely pro
| bable; but, there must be clear prepon-
ldcrance of evidence proving facts and
circumstances warranting. such belief
y mere intrusion or invasion of house,
does not authorize the firing of Il gun or
pistol at the intruder A mans house
is bis castle, and he has a right to defend
it; and the same right belongs to lodger
or boartler to berand his ehamber or room
against illegal assault or invasion; but
neither owner or occupant is justified i'll
having recourse to the last extremity, if
he have reasonable opportunity to remove
the intruder by milder means. And in
any case to justify wilful killing there
must be plain or apparent manifestation
Of feionious intent upon the part o. the in
truder. This intent must be apparent to
the slayer and the danger imminent.
A person assaulted may repel force by
force: but it does not necessarily follow
that he may use q deadly weapon for
that purpose. And if u deadly weapon
was used, it is the duty of the Jury to take
into consideration all the facts and cir
cumstances surrounding the case as to
the probable purposes for which the
weapon was obtained and used by defend
ant i'll committing the homicide, Finally
upon this point: Homicide, if justifa-
BILE upon the ground of lf.defense,
must have been committed in the law
full defense of the person of the defend
ant at Il time when there was reasonable
ground 10 apprehend design to do him
great personal injury. These grounds
must be made TO appear affirmatively by
thetestimony. 1t is true that the party
assailed must at the time judge Of the
grounds of his apprehension; but he
| judges at his peril so far as the question
of entire justifcationis is concerned. Asa
principle of law and common sense he
who has taken the life of another cannot
be entirely justified when he acts, from
unreasonable grounds of apprehension,
though hemay have acted upon an hon
est apprehension Of design on the part
Of the person killed to commit felony,
or to dc him a great bodily injury. In
such case, however, the crime might
be only manslaughter.
There is evidence in this ca Sc tending
to prove that the defendant about the
time Of the commission Of the homicide
was in the habit of using drugs, the effect
of which, it is claimed upon the part OF
the defense, would produce in certain
stages ofits operation upon the system,
fear or apprehension of bodily harm OF
injury.
Now, if the effects of drugs used by
tie defendant, would create, in his mind,
while under the influence thereof, an ap-
prehension Of danger, that would not eX-
ist while the mind was in normal or nat
tural condition, it is circumstance to be
taken into consideration by the jury in
determining the degree of the crime, ii
any has been committed. In connection
with this you will look to the testimony as
to the state of defendants mind, as bear
ing upon the question of the motive which
induced him to obtain possession OF the
weapon and have i. in his room at the
time the homicide was committed. In
short, You will inquire what was the rela-
tive situation or relation of the defendant
and deceased, in every particular, at the
time the homicide was committed,in in arriv-
ing at a just conclusion. You will consid-
er from the testimony the state of mind OF
the defendant at the time of the commits
sion of the crime. You will in connection
with this consider the defendent in pos
session Of deadly weapon, as well as the
purpose for which he was in possession
of the same, whether the purpose was
lawful or otherwise The mere posses
sion of a deadly weapon should not pre-,
iudice the defendant unless the circum-
stances under which it was obtained, and
the purposes for which it was obtained,
prior to the killing satisfies your minds
that the weapon was in the possession of
the accused for an unlawful purpose.
AS to the responsibility of a man for
his own acts, it may be stated that the
owpresumes that every person intends
to do what he does; and intends the ma
tural, necessary, and even probable con-
sequences of his act In civil cases, it is
the duty ofthe jury to weigh the evidence
carefully, aud to find for the party in
whose favor the evidence preponderatcs :
but, in criminal trials, the party accused is
entitled to the legal presumption in favor
of innocence, which, in doubtful cases
must turn the scale in his favor,
The testimony must be such as to sat
isly you beyond rational doubt that
the defendant is guilty Of the charge al