Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1871-09-26
State Of Wisconsin V. James Brooks.


The Trial of tho case entitled as
above in tho Circuit Court on Friday
last attracted moro attention than
any other criminal case that has
como up for disposal during the term.
District Attorney Clementson APP
peared for the State and / j. Woo
ley Of Bosoobel for the defendant
Brooks. The jury failed TO agree in
the conviction of the defendant in any
Of The degrees of manslaughtef, and
Brooks was discharged upon his own
recognizanco We give Judge Mills
charge to the jury in this case, which
ia a full outline Of the testimony adj
duced and bis opinions thereon:
STATE or WtscoNslS1
I.,.,. IS s..., Charge to the Jury
On Information OF tie District Attorney the
defendant is charged with having feioniously
killed Albert Hamlet In The town Of Waters
town in this county, on the 9th Of April,
1871.
The fact Of The killing Is not denied. The
principal facts claimed by the District Attor-
ney as proven are, that the defendant and de-
ceased bad an alteration on the 27th OF April !;
the deceased was armed with a pitchfork aud
the defendant with double barre!ed shot
gun; that the defendant procured the gun
when It was not necessary for sell-deleRse,
went Oh. Of the house anG challenged Hamlet
10 mortal combat that The defendant shot the
deceased in the neck, iuhicting a mortal
wound, when the act was either not justifable
under The right Of sel-defense, or If it was so
necessary at that moment, that the defendant
had unnecessarily armed himself and chal-
lrnged the contest.
The evidence in this case shows clearly
that at lha moment Brooks fired that il was
he only means al his command to save his
own life or person from bodily peril. If this
vas the whole case, IT would be the duty Of
the Court 10 assume the responsibility Of d.
rectIng an acquittal. But the defendant is
not excusable If he unnecessarily put himself
in a situation where he could only save has
own life by the killing Of his adversary. If
Brooks armed himself with the shot gun, for
the purpose OF renewing the contest with
Hamlet, having no good reason TO believe that
II he lett the house peaceably 10 attend 10 his
usual business. that he would be attacked by
Hamlet in sucL manner az TO expose him.
self to serious danger, he cannot discharge
himself from legal guilt by proving the gun
and the shooting only saved bis life. II be
tool; the shot gun for the purpose Of killing
game; OF intending to leave the house m the
pursuit Of his lawful business, be took the
gun for the purpose Of sell-deiense against a
dangerous antagonist; if when he left the
house he was pursued by Hamlet, armed with
a pitchiork, presented in such a manner 40 to
give him good reason to believe Hamlet in
tended to do him some great bodily injury, or
take his life, and that the peril was 20 great
as not 10 be reasonably avoided but by firing
on Hamlet, then the defendant IS justihable in
the law, and your verdict must be mot guilty.
The popularity OF this case is, that il is as
Sumed on both sides that the shooting was
necessary in defense Of Brooks at the time he
fired the gun. The defendants culpabiIity, If
he is blamable at all, must be found in his
having unnecessarily provided himself with a
dangerous weapon for the purpose Of entering
upon a dangerous encounter with Hamlet. If
he took the gun, as have said, intending TO
leave the house peaceaby and pursue his in-
tended errand, and not use the weapon except
in sell-delense, the defendant is entitled 10 an
acquittal. But if he armed himself with the
shot gun, intending 10 60 out Of the house and
fight Hamlet, having no just reason 70 believe
Hamlet would attack him III he went out un-
armed and peaeeably, then you will find the
defendant guilty Of manslagnhter in the 4th
degree.
OF course, If the gun was discharged BY the
thrust from the tine or the fork in Har1le's
hand, the defendant is not guilty. and all rea-
sonable doubts are TO be resolved in his favor.
j. T.MILLS Judge