Arizona citizen., 1874-12-19
CRIMINAL BUSINESS.
Trial. Conviction and Sentence of J. T. Holmes, Indicted for Killing NJ. B. Dufiiield.

This case seems to justify pretty full statement, and now that the end has been reached Tn the district court, no harm can possibly follow what we give herewith.
 Chief Justice Dunno presided. c. w. c. ROwell acted as district attorney for the people, and Messrs. McCarty & Clark and John Titus for the defense. The charge was murder, and the indictment found October 9, 1874. Trial began November l6, 1874, with the following jury: E. McCaf- frey, John Brown, James Hart, D. Davis, J. B. Sawyer, T. Bullock, $. NJ. Evans, J. Pacheco, II. H. H. Holt, O. Reichenbach, Joseph Perrin, J. Cahill. On the 18th oi deliberation. At 20 of the 18th, having been out nearly twenty-four hoursand not being able to agree, and stating to the court there was no probability of agreeing, by consent of all counsel, the jury were discharged.
 THE SECOND TRIAL.
 The second trial began November 26, 1874. The following jury was impanneled: J. NJ. OchOa, F. Tapie, k. Plumrdge, +. J. Beales, c. G. Jones, Wm. Wakefield, B. Palm, J. L. Hunt, J. Lucke, J. G. Hucke, II. w. DOdd and D. NemitZ.
 The evidence shows substantially that the prisoner Holmes and the deceased, Duffield, both claimed adverse interests in the Bronco mine; that Holmes for himself and others was working on the mine about June ,. of this year; that Duf1ield had repeatedly declared that he would kill any body he found in possession of that mine, mentioning Holmes among others; that Duffied was by general repu- tation 0 violent, turbulent and dangerous man; in the habit Of going armed with six shooters, derrlngers and bowie knife, and given to use these weapons upon slight prOVOcatiOn, which threats and character were communicated to defend- ant prior to the killing; that on the 5th of June, Duffield came to the mine and approached the house where Holmes was, giving three loud calls as he approached; that Holmes picked up a shot gun and stepped out about ten feet from the door, advancing gurterly towards Duffield who was theE distant about thirty or forty feet and approaching at fast walk, with no weapons in sight; that Holmes said to Duff to drive me of. Now keep away from here.'' That Duffield continued to ad- vance swinging his hat in front of his breast, but saying nothing; that Holmes said again: Keep away from heIe,,' and about that time Duffield being some fif- teen feet distant, Holmes hred and Duff field fell mortally wounded, dying in few moments.
 THE DEFENSE.
 The claim was that Holmes acted in nee. eSsary sclf-defense; that he was protecting his property and his person against a man who was evidently making 8 felonious at- tack; that he had good reason to believe that DufTeld was armed with concealed weapons, and that if he allowed him to approach close enough, he, Holmes, had good reason to believe that Dut1ield would kill him.
 THE PROSECUTION.
 It was contended on the other side that Holmes had purposely placed himself ill the position he was found at the time of the killing; that he went to the mine with a Knowledge of Duffi2ld'S threats, and ac- cepted an interest in the mine with the knowledge of such a situation of affairs; that he had gone there with a deliberate purpose concerning Dufiied if the latter should make any thing like hostile ap- pearance there, and finally that he was not justified in the homicide, not having done his best to avoid the difficulty.
 CHARGE TO THE JURY.
 WE are unable from lack Of space to give the charge in full, but on the matter of defense of property, his Honor charged as follows:
 Much has been urged before you by counsel for defense, as to the right to kill in defense of property, but you must un- derstand that one is not justified in law in killing in defense of property against a mere treSpaSser upon such property. The only killing which in this Territory is jus tifiable in the matter of defending proper y, tends to commit felony, or where any person or persons manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotOuS and tumul- tuouS manner, 10 enter the habitation Of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.
 KILLING IN sELF-DEFENsE.
 On this head, his Honor, among other instructions charged as follows: Now as to killing in self-defense. First. Tn order to make killing in selfdefense justifia- ble, it must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears Of a reas- enable person that his life was in danger, or that he was in danger of receiving great bodily harm. You are to be the judges of the reasonablenesS of those fears. It is not enough that the party killing had fears of his life or limb. You must be able to say, from the circumstances of the case as shown to you, by the evidence, l that those fears were the fears of a treas onable" person.
 Second. II is not enough even that he had such reasonable fears, but you must be convinced that he acted under the in- fluence Of those fears and not in spirit of revenge.
 Third. It is not sufficient that he had such reasonable fears, nor that he acted under the influence of those fears, but it must also appear that the danger was so urgent and pressing that in order to save his own life or prevent his receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary.
 Fourth. Even all of the foregoing con- ditions are not sufficient to make the kill ing juStifiable homicide, but even when they all exist, it must appear also that the person killed was the assailant, or that he, f,,t