Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1870-03-03

/ 49,
State of Ohio, vs. Henry Yaus, the ill.,
dictment being for murder in the second
degree. A Jury was impanneled and
sworn, composed ofthe following named
citizens: Thomas Malin, John L. Jones,
Samuel Thompson, Joseph Pancoast,
Samuel Riley, Smith Sinclair, John
Hinkle, Thomas J. King, Charles
Bewley, J. II. Watkins, Hugh Furguson
and George T. Hoover; who were ell
gagged in hearing testimony until Sat
urday evening, when Court adjourned
until Monday morning at 81 O'Clock.
On the coming in of Court, pursuant
to adjournment, the argument on the
part of the State was opened in mas
terly manner by ]. W. Shannon Prose-
cutting Attorney, occupying near two
hours. He was followed by Judge Cowen
on the part of the Defendant, with an
argument of about the same length, and
delivered in his usual pointed manner.
i Court then adjourned until one O'Clock.
Court being in session L. Danford, Esq,
addressed the Jury for two hours, in his
peculiarly pathetic and forcible style.
Then came Tie closing of the case
| by P. Tallman, Esq, Assistant Pros
ecuting Attorney, assigned by the Court,
who engaged the attention of the Jury
until near ) O'Clock, in his we'll known
and ingenious manner.
The argument being closed, the Jury
received from The Court the following
charge:
The defendant Henry Yaus, is charged
by the State, as alleged in the indict-
ment, with having murdered Josiah
Ferrell, by shooting him in the abdomen
with ball discharged from u pistol, on
the 3lst day of May, 1859. This accusa-
tion you have been sworn to try and de-
termine from the evidence in the case,
and the instruction given you by the
Court.
indictment: Murder in the second de-
gree and Manslaughter.
Murder in the I'd degree is defined to
be the Intentional killing, with malice,
(where the nadLice,) or evil disposition
of mind, operates suddenly upon some
recent impulse, and had not been pre-
meditated or deliberated upon.
Manslaughter is defined to be the aua.
Intentional killing, without malice, when
the slayer is in the com mission OF some
unlawful act. or the Intentional killing
upon sudden quarrel.
| l. Your first inquiry, having found
that Josiah Ferrell is dead, is: Did he
come to his death by means of the ball
discharged from the pistol by the defen-
dant, in this county? From the evidence
of the circumstances attending his death,
the nature of the wound, the time the
deceased lived after receiving it, and
The opinions of the attending surgeons
who examined the wound, and the con-
dition of the deceased, you will deter
mine whether the death was caused i'm
the manner set forth in the Indictment.
If you find the act of the defendant
caused the death, you will then enquire:
Whether the defendent purposeEy dis
charged the weapon.
"PurpOsely," implies the act of the
will al intention, design to do the
act. 1t pre-supposes the free agency of
the actor. Does the evidence satisfy you
that the shot was fired with the deSiq,l
to kill the deceased?
This design or purpose to kill, must
be gathered from the circumstances at
tending the transaction, and the instru-
ment employed which produced the
death.
If the act was done pwposey, was it
the result of malice ?
Malice is an evil;design, a mind bent
on mischief. The law adjudges that
feeling malicious, which impels its pos
SCISSOR into acts of aggression. 1t de-
nOtesa wrongful act done Intentionally,
without just cause or excuse; and it
must not be contour led with the popu-
lar meaning, which is ''spite or hatred"
The presumption of law is that when
there is wilful or wrongful killing that
it was done maliciously; and malice is
also presumed from the deliberate selec-
ton and use of a deadly weopon in a
wrongful killing. Therefore to reduce
the crime below murder in the I'd degree,
the wrongful and wilful killing being
established, proof must be presented Of
kind and force sufficient to overcome
the legal presumption that malice exist
ed at the time.
If you are satisfied from the testimo-
ny that there was an absence of malice,
the crime, if any has been committed lis
nadnsLaughter.
1t is presumtion of law that every
man intends the natural an necessary
consequences of his own acts.
To constitute crime there must be a
guilty intent. If an act is committed
without criminal intent, there is no
crime proven, therefore if the defendant
did not purpoSety killed Josiah Ferrell,
he is not guilty of any crime, unless at
IuC biih l1O w sto SOlu6 I'LL
lawful act.
Was the act unintentionaly done while
the defendant was engaged in some un-
lawful act?
If so, the defendant is guilty of man.
slaughter.
You must be satisfied from the evil
dence that every material matter con-
|stituting the offence is proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.
The accused cannot be lawfully con-
victed unless the evidence establishes
the guilt beyond doubt. A verdict o.
guilty can never be returned withoutcon-
vincing evidence. Thelaw is too human
to demand a conviction while rational
doubt remains in the minds of jury.
The jury will be justified and are requir-
ed to consider reasonable doubt as
existing if the material facts without
which guilt cannot be established may
fairly be reconciled with innocence. In
human affairs absolute certainty is not
always attainable. From the nature of
things reasonable certainty is all that
can. be attained on many subjects |
When full and candid consideration of
the evidence produces conviction of
guilt, and satisfies the mind to reason
able certainty, mere captious or inge-
niOus artificial doubt is of no avail. The |
jury must look to the evidence, and i'll
that satisfies them of the defendants |
guilt they must say SO, but if they are
not fully satisfied, and find only that
there are strong probabilities of guilt, |
the only safe course is to acquit.
Homicide, if justiliable upon the |
ground of self-defense, must have been
committed in the lawful defense of the |
person or property of the defendant at
time when there was reasonable ground
to apprehend design to do him great
bodily injury, and the party assailed
must at the time judge of the grounds of
his apprehension. In law a mans house |
10 l,iS noyfI.a aud In hoo N r;rl,f Il