The Cambria freeman. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1867-1938, 1874-09-18

strength and capacity of the officer as known
to himself, the fact that he may not have OBJ
served that the first shot struck Patton. If il
did strike him. Had he reason to believe and
did he believe, that the shooting was necessary
Justified in firing the pistol. altho' II may
now turn out that tke last and fatal shot
The Commonwealth claims that the defend
ant exceeded his authority-that he used Vio
been made without. It Is not claimed; that the
kiIling was malicious, but only that it was IN
OF manslaughter. 1t is urged, that when Burns
ePproached Patton, he was 30 yards distant
that when Patton Jumped the fence Trey were
66ais from On, fopr to eight yards apart Burns
yards-thus showp 6, 9rn 70 onId n,S nv,
Patton The defendant claims that Burns,
ehorter distance to run than Patton. You will
fact
The Commonwealth further urges that the
nrst shot struck Patton and disabled hint that
70 Icii from the fence into the fieid-that Burns
81" this and ceased pursuit-that only when
ration jumped up and ran the second time did
Burns foIlow-that he could have caught him
had he; followed Immediately after the first
shot.that as others saw that this shot had dis
hhoita hor-. Fat pa.t2n' Burns being ne1rer must also
lurthcr shots were unnecessary; yet, noiwith-
caused the death and therefore this fatal shot,
Delne unnecessary, was unlawful. l6 Burns
hfst shot disabled Parton, ana rendered his
capture probable, the second shot, ii that was
the fatal one, was unla wful. Hisarrcst was u
tiiat was sought, and the violence necessary to
acconbl,sh that is all that is justifahle, a
single injury inflicted either through wnnt OF
caution, eau reckicssncss, or malice, on the par: OF
the ofhcer- was unlawful, and he cannot go
clear and he ought to bc punished. But to
lind The fact that the last shot was not nrces-
sary, II any shots were necessary. you mus find
the two facts, that the first shot disa blcd Pat
ton, a'.d that Burns Inc~ It had disabled him.
AS We have already stated, some OF the wit
nesses Tor the Commonwealth testified that
Patton fcH from the fence when the first shot
was fired, and halted in his gait afterwards.
The defendant denies that the first shot had
any effect. III ii STRUCK Patton al all, and he
further alleges that If there was any change in
his speed, or he was crippled, he Burns, did not
observe it. ..4
1t is for you to determine these disputed facts
II he could have been there arrested without
firing the pistol at all; or II lie could have been
arrested without firing tho bal which infiict ed
the mortal wound, the killing was unlawful
aud the defendant is guilty OF manslau2 u2hter al
| least.
If you have reasonable Doubt as TO the
guilt OF the defendant, he is entitled to the
benefit of that doubt. lie has called a large
number of respectable citizers, most of whom
haye known him from his tCtitE up. They tes-
tify that his character for peace ana good or
der durihe all that time has been of the best
Ills counsel argue that in view of the evidence
here, 1t is extremely probable that q man of
peace, one who all hi. life has been averse 10
violence has shrunk from injury to his fellows
would in this instance either careleesly. rcck
lessy. or unlawfuily fire pistol. This is an
argument which may be fairly addressed to
you. You will consider it and give the evil
dcnce on good character such weight ii
ought to have in making up your verdict
Standing by itself good. character would not bC
sufficient to acquit in view of the evidence in
the case, 1t may establish to your satisfaction
innocence.
Consider ali the evidence carefully and an.
swcr, tn killing unlawful? IL .~rt' then
the defendant is guilty OF mansaugFter and
duences. If no. the defendant committed jus
tifiable homicide and must be found not guilty