, 1873-02-06

etn. nrrn
ton a1ato9sod tho Jury T1o said II wsa III tl,oir
poWer to turn tho prisonor loose again to ehoot
such such anotofs tsg mai, Is fleming and 3orbost. ani
Kennedy, tlie latter OF whom was essyoted and
hung in Lako County. Tho plon Of tho do
fonco that nafforty did not shoot OAfonra. bo-
cause tho Toun Tas n slio of Ills , botly which
tlon In which ho stood In the saloon. waB non
soneo. DID tho jury sappoae for moment that
nlnn wfoBo lifo was throatonod by rovolyer,
would otana with hia back agalnnt co,,nlor md
O'Manra did SO, ho orloa out, 'Chris.i don't
gloot!" Would hc uttor that plalntivo cry with
his nrn1s calmly resting on tho counter OF aa-
did ho run awny, and why did ho
toll tho police officer who arroatod him TINT ho
supposed tho doyl made him do 1t Tho argu-
ment on Rafferty'B clarA3tor, % Bworn to by llg
ho md his companions reside, was tho very yes-
tbulo OF hell No honoat man was sefo within
itB limits aft,r dark Tho frat question man
would naturally asl! nftor getting into TINT terri
people e Brtdgeport, Tho same people ron
among whom Rafferty, came, would Indulge IN 4
general jollincation II oyery policeman In the
City of Chicago was b,itchored and they you'd
hs aHS band d il tho hu*o9er Il tSy yosea Ss1oa
man in Chicago, Tlo Buprome Court did not
decide that drunkenness could bo urged to dis
provo tho Intent OF tho criminal In othot
words, tho Court decided that what wes wifful
1nurder In sober man was aleo wilful murder
in adruukon man. Tho speaker claimed that
Rafforty was not drunk. however,. He bad been
drunk, but waa not drunk whom tho officer on
aonsibility from liquor, how could he calmly ask
tho officer to road tho warrant to hi1n3 How
he did not have ono in tho house? How could
he walk into tho middle Of tho floor, and cry
man that hid hand on him7
Did not MI his ncts previous to tho shooting
show doliberation and intont to murder2 Tho
abuse Of the police by hlr. Small md his asso-
oato VIVA sla1,dor and libel upon tho charac-
tor of body who had suffered much and worc
expected to stand ovory hardship.
The Stato's Attorney concluded withan appeal
for the protection OF society from such mon US
Tho Judge read the following instrnctiona to
ha.epast tni ep 80 ooloek: lock !'''''N ~ ''N'
The Court tnstEucts tho jury that murder is tho un-
awful killing Of human being In the face Of the peo
ge, with malice atorethougat osnress Or u Implied:
exist for any length Of te but It is sufficient In law
ii It Is formed and exists ut lite instant Of giving tho
tend tne natural consequences Of hls acts. And II y
man uses deadly weapon upon anothor IN sltch man
4 person, then tho law assumes tho person SO
ua!ng such deadly weapon intended to destroy tho
n1o of tha person upon whom such weapon y 40 used.
yond reasonable doubt, that The defendant rafferty,
deliberately. and Intentionally hred and shot Of
70 III !. IN s
dletmen ind that saia o'11oara was then and thoro
Rea er and hna dea from tne eeca q spGa
Indictment thsn The dc defendant T. guilty Of MURDER
Thn o yt !u,y t0atrnats tha rx rc,ao,,a
doubt means, In law, = HNE10f8, aubeant1a!, aud
n nmht rho ;"rv have M roht ~ ~ d~sada ~
the evidence to s9sss for Or hunt up doubts net arts
4 o eo r nsrr a G r9 th.t Y. rs
m ar 'ea 'n''
The good character Of tho defendant. oven Il tho
tne sh9Hh h re t nas
sa of h ss n y baee '3s poaa
deqa rarck as IL re
5o he esyona oasopa1s doubt That
Inc 1s snos % aha nGa rex mh
nrs,s r IMPLIED and in manner ana M term y charged
III % rae re 3ury sooa,a ana .ne actenaaht
gul.y. although no motive Is proved or shown for
suGa LEI 41l1ng., H.,
ano UoIf H., anss.uGta tne 3ury snas maISe alore-
og 10 lrhoa Tea IT. no n5ovo 70
Fon THE DEFENDANT:
necessary ior tho prosecution IN Tho q show by
evidence Which admits 9, no tcasonasae doubts 10 tho
u to jury sht 1aLftIA nA1AlaE lAe ueetahuAt
was Killed BY bullet discharged from pistol In the
hands OF me defendant ~ the nn1e OF tha ki!l-
ng; Tho jaTy ase not as n9osty to Infer that said
oeara Was killed " bulles discharged from the de-
fendants pistol unless thsre Is 20 Other reasouablo
way to account for Tho Killing. under th9 evidence.
AND tho jnty from al tho evidence IN the case On
cra'n doubs upon thia point the dofend-
amt entitled 10 tho behet Or at donpt anu mubt ba
acquitted.
II the jury believe from the evidence that the Wit
ness Jancs scanon tcstted wifnlly falsely With re-
then 1t is The duty Of The jury to disregard bis test
ony altogether unlcss corroborated by other test1-
m9ny 1n tho case: -..--
Iho court instInots tue Jury that they cannot md
re- gnilty Of @ Is eMhargea M IN INC n
the homicide va committed b. hn With malice afore-
taought c1preaa Or implied That th1s malce cannot
be presumed sole!y from tho fact TINT the prisoner
nay havo used deadly weapon IN such manner ~
to destroy lfe there must hHyo been deliberate
Of The weapon, TINT s to say, deiberation of mind
the intention Of murdor, and, while no partlc-
ular length Of time Ia necessary for such
dcberAston and intention, still there must be sone
ms tor dsliberatson otherwiae there can be no no
t!ce aforothoughtt either expreas or implied, as
charged In tho Indictment.