The Idaho world. [volume] (Idaho City, Idaho Territory) 1864-1918, 1870-11-24

FnrlF
,hre wasno sufficient deliberation 10 ralse ,n
To murder in the first degree; that IS; tnas s ey
entertained malice against deceased. Du' Una. "A
er made M his mind TO kill him, untl sucii . p =,
9 - ,ba killing that he had not sufficient line 20
consider or if he had sufficient time, MS inu -
not in condition 10 consider what nc MAS "'o'
what would be the result OF his acts ,.,,..-
7. ,r,lar tn find defendant guilty OF inahsaas
or xrouId have TO believe that there Was no oe &c.
3ta ;ntantion or malicious feeling, eAsL,ho a. - -
breast Of defendant against deceased a. ~ ,,t
the killing: or il there had BEEN thit po
;r, nv mad been abandoned, because pfeiheei,1 ~
- liheratipr ON the part of defendant 10 hl u
ceased would raise the crime 70 hiu.ust i:,..;,y
decree. and existing malice, without dae
or reconciliation, would raise 'he N1- -
in the second degree. :, . .,.,.,,htar vou
must I'm. from the evidence that the Killing was .a
res1It of some sudden cause, and tlat lHerS Was So
proyocation sufficient to overtnro" anu - S.
so and ia create such passion in the breast % nc
fniapt that il is not in the nature OF humahi'! "
In the consideration of threats, it is always neces
sary to take into account the clrcuiIs'e.s ri
which such threats were made Tor the puIPose ~. ~
determining as To whether the intention Oh aho PA;
making the same and the causes therefor, COZ
until the time Of the fatal ARRAY AgSrASauhB CIR
cumstances very often prompt threats, anu ~, ,ie
be very unjust and unnatural To suppose 'i' '.ite
opI6 have no tendency TO eface and sOotlle ic al
tated mind or the ruied spirit; ana WINE 'lieasS
shouh be entitled to each aud every explanation SUI
rounding them, WORTH lAsti uNA eO's N".~N
So, al tba defendant made i'll his own iaNor ought
IN he received with still greater caution upon 'le
well established principle that all persons are ION -
make admissions against themselves hhiAe a. a.
cnse6 are inclined 10 cover up their criminal luteh
tions by excuses Of business, or fears OF Impending
danger All such declarations OF business, OF iVA1e
OF danger ought 10 be well corroboratea ny es'loi.
which convinces You of the truth OF tie declarations
There is question OF conspiracy 10 be decided pA
Won and the rule is that when TWO or more per
sous agree 10 do an unlawful act or al act which may
become by the combination injurious 10 o'Aefa, aA
In pursuance of such design, one Of the eonspr@tDFs
acts in the matter, with the advice anu consent %
ha others still continuing, all are responsible Tor ihe
act done which was previously planned and assenied
10 bv all; but Won must be sahsned tn sReh ca-
bination was formed 10 do what was done. aAd tA@t
the defendant was one Of the persons so cohspFig'
before You would be warranted IL holding nm 70
account for what any OF the others dd III Inc pEel'
SEES II YOU should believe that such conspiracy
was formed and that the programme was carried oa'
in substance as planned, and that defendant was a
party thereto then he would be bound by any act OF
the others which was III pursuance oi the previous
design.
If YOU should believe that the combat between de-
tendaut and deceased mutual. and that each vas
bent on taking the life Of the other, or thai either III
tended 10 provoke the other into fight for the par-
pose Of making an excuse 10 kill the other. aud That
neither acting in seldeense IN good faith. then
L makes no difference as 10 who might nave beth
]r manslanghter according 10 the definitions which
nave given you before
No words however insulting Or provocaion ho~
yer great can reduce homicide q lover grade a.
,llling than maIslaughter. Even iLc aAelng q! a
nan IN adultery with another's wife. VIII rot Jasi1y
ach other in killing the trespAsssr. AMI Il tile IL.
ured outraged Should Kill TIE Nio!Ater 81 h+s
,ed. lie would be guilty - lnanslaushrr and II he
lad sufficient time to deliberate he would be gum!
II murder.
II you have any doubt a. % who was the aegressor
N the day Of the fatal ARRAY and the feeling u
hrea;s Of deceased against defendant Hsl throw amy
light upon this question then you can take such feel
ng or threats into the acsount 20 aid you in arriving
L jHst conclusions - the auiurs 81 deceased and
he probabilities II he being The aggressar. bat sacA
hreats should not be received 10 justify defendant
lnless such threats came 70 the knowledge If TIE de-
endant. Such threats, II communicated. should bc
aiken into consideration for tn purpose ouly of d.
with what fer Of danger defendant acted
1 the time. and 10 be added 10 the gg-i danger IL
shiCh the deiyudan. was placed II hau j. 10 real
LANCER, W thinks he il, lie i justified IL defending
himself 10 tie extent OF taking TIC lfo ~ tie person
rom whom danger Was expected 81 threatened. |
ach danger Of bodily injury. or expected injury.
must - - urgent that reasonable man would fear
Dr his life or limbs: aud IL this connection v..i
axe occasion - say that il is muatcrial who fred
be first shot. or attempted u IRE first. . such sa5,
as fired solely il selGdc!ense.
II you believe that Abbott shot Hana0T tn cuuse /
uence Of what Hanror said At the time OF the xii.
x. Abbott would not be justified. but II Hammer |
rev or attempted 70 draw hts pistol to shoot Abbott
consequence Of what Abbott said. aud Abbott then
hot Hannor 10 prevent Hannor from shooting him /
len Abbott would be justified. provided tia; he |
Abbott did not say what he did simply for the pur.
ose Of afoTding him an excuse tn shoot Hauuor II |
annor should show any resentment
The defendant is presumed % be innocent and to /
nd him guilty you must be satisfied. beyond . rras. |
nable doubt, that be has been proven guilty Of ANY
-ime. but your doubt must he serious aud substan-
al. and not the mere possibility Of doubt
II is not expected that the jury will be disposed to
unit up some trivial pretcnce for the purpose Of ex
using the defendant. but they 10 weigh all the
violence in the case calmly, deliberately dispasiun
tely. and then come to n conclusion to whether
ny other theory, than that the defendant is guilty
oud be reasonable. In civil cases the side making
ut the strongest case il entitled to verdict but II
not SO in criminal cases. The defendant must be |
lown to be guilty. beyond reasonable doubt. The |
Jason OF this principle is obvious II is founded
pon that humane doctrine that ii * better that guilt
iould 60 Impun ished than that innocence should |
lfier punishment would say that ii Is your duty
accept the law "a given to you by the Court "a |
uch az It is to take the evidence detailed by the
illnesses.
Gentlemen, have said all that is preper for me
say which | caii conceive Of any service to you |
making up your verdict. II IL the pride Of our |
tsuttons that every person accused OF crime shall
ave the right to be tried by fair and impartial urv
the country. No higher duty can devolve Oh you |
ise. how very important that you should discharge
without fear, favor. affection or hope Of reward
his case has been submitted to one try and IN. |
for the public they failed to agree. and
gu nave been called to perform what such jury failed
do. The public Is being put to very heavy ex- |
ense as wen as the defendant. and it would be very
nfortunate for all parties Interested If you should
ave no better facilities for arriving at one and the
me opinion than the jury which has preceded you
Is your duty to agree, If you can. without doing
oence to your feelings of right and while it would
ardy be expected that each one and all of you would
lew dt the evidence as pointing to the same result
CT 1t IS expected that in all that is material in the
ise you will agree, and that as reasoning candid
10 sensible men, You will be able to reconcile any |
lconsstencies in the statements Of witnesses, and
II 1, of opinion you may have and that you
III agree upon verdict. If you should find it alb.
, ,o necessary to compromise your opinions
men hope Won will not. Il onQht always 10 he in