New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-12-07
TIE HINES IIOMICIDI..

WAS MrNENlNS A MUKHEREK J - INTERESTING
POINTS OF CRIMINAL LAW.
The arcnmcnt in the case Of NcNcyin-, con-
vcted Of murder IN killing LwaId Hines. on he night
Of Nov. o. $50, OIL yesterday. III The General Term
OF the Supreme Court, before Judges Incraain Barnard
and Cardozo McNeNins shot Hines at Fcary's s.""n
No &c East sixlecntlst., in drunken crawl. IT l.
claimed by the prisoners counsel Ira Shaicr. W. +.
Howe and J. j. Marvin that the conviction OF MrNcvs
was erroneous the life Of the deceased was not
taken with malice aforethougLt, and there is no Tetcns
upon the peoples proof that the accused acted with dc"
sign. McNeyins, they allcge was sober pcaceahle, aid
quiet the night in question, at Fcarys saloon the
deceased assaulted him with llhic when he went
out OF the sa!o6fh all IN seltdctcnsSo he fired
at him. Counsel also contend thar injustice was Gone
the accused on the Trial when tie cour. admitted proof
mcnber the most disor,;cry III the CITY, ana per
nitted the character Of his wi'n" * Ia ana Mr.
py-to he npeached by showing that they belonged to
this gang.
cus"d guilty OF murder IN tie second 9ecrcn' ror i
Inanslaugher in the first second OF fourth degree AMI
n m5 at an nacmen for any conrisnr OF r
ent degrees, the jury may ind the accused not guilty OF
e ene p.ron e "sr Of a sh se in
ieror TO that charged in the indictment or Of an at
jury might have rendered verdict Of murder In tue
second degree, as defined by the Court Of Appeals.
there was eythee enans to show previous ens
between the prisoner aud the deceased and between
the victim, Hines sober peaccale, and quiet, ana
did nothing offend the prisoner did he assault
HIM. h cato to aud That the evidence utterly failed
esablish the plea of sclfdcfense for McNcNins was
peril OF life limb, and had no reason to believe
he The DistrctAttOrnry claimed that tho CREDIBLE
Ivy OF the witnesses for the prisoner was Destroyed ny
their contradictions and papabe falsehoOds ana tnat
perjury was plainly shown. The charge as to selfde
:ensc was proper setting forth three conditions to
then designing ~ do great bodily harm to the person
who killed him. a. reasonable ground for believing
that danger imminent. 49, Evidence that the belief
wac justified by all the circumstances. 1t submitted
that this accurate and fair statement Of the law
As the second allegation error replied that
the statute (tev STAT VOL 6th Ed, 989 To
indictment Oense consisting Of different degrees
prOvides that the jury may ind the accused person
guilty Of any degree OF such 0ense inferior to that
power Of the Jury. They must exercise II within the
bounds Of the law The Indictment must include true
description Of the act DONE and VI all the
defining the minor O6ense. 1t the province Of the
Court to charge the jury that NO other crime de-
.scribed In the Indictment. by any possibility ehtab-
shed by the evidence beside the VI murder In the
first degree granddaughter IN the third degree On the
indictment and evidence other verdict would have
been aside and in such Judge ia warranted
dict. (G W. New TRAILS 1885, Decision
| served.
The cases Of Lookup Evans the notorious abortion
ist and WIN. OKe indicted for grand larceny Of money
securities and for feOuiOn-y receiving the 1t being
charged that he robed the First National Bank Of Nor
walk Conn, also argued in General Term. the de
,isious being reserved.