Arizona citizen., 1874-12-26

any horses have really been stolen. But even when one is justified in making an arrest he Is not justified in killing, unless previous 10 such killing he shall have used all reasonable efforts to take the ac- cuSed without success, and that from all probability there was no prospect of being able to prevent injury from such resist ance and the consequent escape of such person.
 THE VERDICT.
 The jury after few hours deliberation returned a verdict of manSlaughter. The punishment for which is Imprisonment for not less than one and not more than five years.
 TRIAL OF HALL FOR MURDER OF l.. vACA.
 Moore was tried for the murder Of the Mexican named Lupe Vaca. IL was pro. posed at first to try Hall for the murder of the other Mexican, IsOdora Anay a, but the prosecution finally determined to try him first for the murder of Lupe Naca, as be- ing joint principal in the killing with defendant. Moore.
 Trial of Hall began December 14, 1874. l., C. Hughes, district attorney, and c. w. c. Powell for prosecution. Hugh Farley and Philip J. Walker for defense, acting under appointment of the court, the de- fendant having appeared without counsel. VenIres of one hundred and forty persons were exhausted in obtaining the following jury: Hiram $. Stevens, foreman. E. H. Wilhelm, Joseph Goldtree. Otto Richen- bach, John Brown, l.. E. Brown, Pascual Magree, Tom Miller, W. A. McDermOtt, J. Bedford, D. A. Singleton, NJ. Collins.
 THE PROSECUTION.
 The defendants having asked postpone ment of his trial on account of absent wit neSSes, and having filed an affidavit stat ing that he expected to prove that he had bought three days prior to the killing, one of the horses ridden by one of the MeXi- cans killed, the prosecution, in order 10 bring the case on for trial admitted that fact as being absolutely true, but contend bought the horse from any one having au- thority to sell it. nor that he was the own CT of it at the time of the killing, nor that it had been stolen from him. The prose- cution further cOntended that Hall knew of the departure of Lupe Vaca from Salt river with money and followed him for the sole purpose of killing and rObbing hlm, and that he with Moore's assistance both of such acts.
 THE DEFENSE.
 No witnesses were offered in defense, ex- cept that defendant himself took the stand and swOre the horse was stolen from him; that he tracked it to these Mex jeans, and that Moore did all the killing. Trial lasted five days. The charge was substantially the same as in the Moore case.
 THE VERDICT.
 The jury was out one night and large part of two days. They finally returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree, the punishment for which is inn prisonment not less than ten years and which may extend to life.
 TRIAL OF MOORE FOR THE MURDER OF IsO-
 DORA ANAYA.
 The indictment for the murder by Moore )f the other Mexican, IsodOra Anaya, was 1 xon nappr,l her 10 1874 The An- fendant now pleaded former conviction n this court for the same OffenSe, and in support of that plea offered the record Tn he case where he was tried and convicted )t the killing of Lupe Vaca. Venires of one hundred and fifty persons were ex 1austed in getting the following jury: k. WOffenden, foreman, l.. E. Brown, w. B. Vaughn, Tomas Elias, M. Thompson, c. H. Horn, J. Ryan, NJ. Engals, c. A. Frank in, Antonio Comaduran, J. F. Abbott and Henry Smith. THE TRIAL ON THE PLEA OF FORMER CON- |
 vICTIoN. The two indictments were read to the 1 ury, showing that the first was for the | killing of a person named Lupe Vaca, and | he other for a person whose name was | unknown to the grand jury at the time of l he indictment, but was subsequently, | hown to this jury 10 be IsidOrO Anaya. | All the evidence with regard to the cir |
 
 eport was given them, they received oral | from the court, went out and | three hours and a half and | hen came into court for farther inStruc- | ions. The two indictments were then | gain read to them, and his honor farther instructed them as follows: The rule to determine whether what is charged as two | eparate offences, each set forth in a sepa- ate indictment, is in fact two offences or nly one and the same offence, is this; Where an indictment is pending and de- 3ndant pleads former conviction on an- ther indictment, if the very same evil ence which was necessary to convict on he first indictment, would also be suffi- tent to convict on the second indictment 'ithout any change of any k1nd in the ev. renee, then the offence charged in the nat set forth in the first indictment. Mind, do not say the same evidence which may ave been given on the first trial for there lay have been more evidence given on le first trial than was absolutely neceS- iry to sustain the charge made on the rst trial. What I say is that if just so luch of the evidence given on the first ial as was absolutely necessary to con- jet the defendant of the particular offence larged on that trial, would also be suffi- ent to find the defendant guilty of the , articular offence charged on this trial, len the offence here charged is the same that on which he has been already ( jed, and your verdict should be for the l efendant But, supposipg all the evidence which /, as given on he.first trial was taken out, icept just so much as was necessary to ( 'nvict the defendant on that trial of the X aFticular charge made on that trial, if )u believe that there would not then be ff1Rinnt QUi6PnRR tho a- n