The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1873-04-11

opened the case in q brief and
concise review of the testimony and
the law in the case. Judge Strahan
followed on the part of the defence,
making an able argument in favor
of the prisoner. r. Williams, Esq,
of Portland, next addressed the jury
in one Of his strongest arguments
on the part Of the defence. George
r. Helm, ESQ.,, closed the argument
for the State in o forcible and elo-
quent appeal, that justice might be
done to the living and the dead,
which was listened to by the vast
audience which had assembled to
hear the pleading with the most pro-
found attention. The management
Of the case by counsel for the State
and the prisoner was mastery.
At the close of the argument Judge
Bonham charged the jury as follows:
INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY:
GExTLEMES or THE JuRYs-The Defendant.
Elias Keepey. II charged by this Indictment
have been committed In this county on the
| Sist day Of January, 1919. by the defendant
.,sn and II thsss fsIonogsly and p uniawfuly
There are three degrees Of untustifable hom-
icide-Murder In the first and second degrees
Murder in the fIrst degree ts where any person
| nnlawfuliy and with deliberate and premedita-
| ted malice. or In the attempt 10 commit rape,
| arson, robbery or burglary, shall Kill another.
| Murder in the second degree IL when person
| shall unlawfuily. purposely and naliciousiy.
| another. Or where person In the attempt to
1 commit any felony other than arson, rape,
robbery or burglary. shall kin another.
| MansIaughter, the crime charged In this in.
| dictment, Is defined To be the unlawful killing
| OF human being without deliberation or pre-
1 meditation and, without malice, express or
duccd by provocation sufficient To render the
/ passions Of the accused irresistible and uncon-
troilable.
TO sustain this indictmedt It In necessary for
the state To prove:
| isT. That Vim. Pelton was killed.
ESD. That he was killed In Linn County In
this state.
BIRD. That he was voluntarily killed by the
defendant. Elias keeney.
The Defendants plea of not guilty puts in
| issue all the material allegations charges
| preferred against him by this Indictment.
These charges or allegations against defend
| ant must be proven BY the state beyond rea-
| sonable doubt before you are warranted in re-
turning a verdict of guilty against him.
| What Is meant by a reasonable doubt is. that
must be satisfied from the testimony OF the
guilt Of the defendant as charged In the indict.
ment, 10 that'you will, as conscientious and
| reasonable men feel NO hesitation or reason
| able fears that II you should find the defendant
guilty you would be doing him an in1ustjcc or
wrong.
Every conceivable doubt which might be en-.
teraincd by a Juror IL not a reasonable doubt
| fs.f IN Ia a.
and recommend itself to a fair minded and
| reasonable man as such.
The defendant In this case has introduced
testimony for the purpose OF showing that the
killing charged In the Indictment II done By
him was done In SELF defense.
The old doctrine Of the common law on this
| subject has been somewhat modified by the
modern doctrines of our courts. Formerly II
was held that 10 constitute a Qualification on the
grounds OF self defense the accused must prove
that he had retreated to the wall as II was term
ed. BY that is meant that the accused shoaid
| retreat or fall back when assailed as lar hs
| reasonably might do in order TO avoid a COLI
sion. And also that In order To justify ths
| killing ol another tho life Of the accused mus
have been In danger and Il must have beer
necessary In order TO save the life OF the &C
cuscd that he should take that OF his assailant
This doctrine has been SO modified by modern
adjudicatIons that IL is now held that person
Is not required TO retreat fall back to the wal
measures against his assailant. But he may
stand his ground and defend himself agains
the assaults OF his adversary.
person is Justified In taking the life OF fellow
being you should carefully weigh and conside
transaction to see II the accused did In gcos
| faith and upon reasonable and lawful grounds
The maintenance OF the public peace and tn
| preservation and protection OF life deman,
that every one should carefully and studiousi.
avoid every word or act that would nafuraii.
| tend TO the disturbance OF one the destrie
| ton OF the other. The carrying OF deadi,
| weapons and the use of insulting language, a
| hlp serial gathprinRR arts ii
causes OF strife aud bioodshed, and are Gil
cumstances. when proven 10 exist in any pal
| ticulnr case, which should be duly considers
| by the jury In determining the causes whtc
may have brought about acts OF violence.
vond aa a,s donss thai M deianaant vo
unfairly shot and killed VIM. Pelton. and tina
the evidence adduced by the State does nc
show that the defendant WAS Justifiable or es
cusable. then the State has made out It's cas-
| When such proof Is made, unless the circum
stan OF the KLINE . sa@% that at he % was Just,
on the defendant to show a Justification or e,
cuse for the killing. In such case II devolve
necessary. or to show such circumstances a
render the act excusable.
The burden Is on the state. In the first In
stance, TO remove the presumption OF innt
cencc and to show that The defendant did tn
} acts which constitute the crime charged.
But when the state has shown beyond n ret
sonable doubt that q defendant. purposely Q
voluntarily. did the killing charged In the In
dictment with weapon that was designed an
den Of the proof changes and then rests upo
the defendant.
Where voluntary killing With gun or @piste @
tending TO show a justification or an excuse,
, there Is not a preponderance OF evidence In IA
, vor OF justification or excuse the drfense Is nc
i Gentlemen. you are the sole judges OF th
credibilify OF witnesses and OF the sufhcienc
OF the testimony, to warrant you In nndin
: any given verdict The law presnmes that e,
! cry one will tell the truth when sworn in conr1
. is innocent OF crime. These presumptions ma
be overcome. however. by proof showing tina
the certain In 10 are ss a,
as given you by the Court
, II you are satisfied beyond reasonabl
J doubt from the testimony that the accused she
and killed VIM. Pelton, as charged In the In
dictment, then you should ind him guilty q
saassd ih hut ,hb seIieye that the defendant II
took the life OF Pelton did necessarily do so u
] self defense in order to save his own life, O
iiy liz injury. then You ought to find the defend
ant not guilty.
your verdict will be as follows:
xs. Inatment for Manslaughter
We, the jury in the above entitled case. nm,
the defendant guilty, rs charged in the indict
: ment. tsigning the same by some one OF you
II you find the defendant not guilty. You will
after stating the title OF the case. say: We. tn
jury IN the above entitleO cstse, ibu the us
, fendant not guilty. tsgning the same by SOM
, one OF your number as foreman.
b. +. BONHAM, Judge.
After receiving the instructions o
, the Court the jury retired and afte.
being out for about sixteen hours re
turned verdict of "Nor GUILTY"
This ended the ball room tragedy
d and we trust that we may never b,
f called upon again to record anothe
such unfortunate affair.
L = 4 -. L. el,<.l n lo,n