The Arizona sentinel. [volume] (Arizona City [Yuma], Yuma County, A.T. [Ariz.]) 1872-1911, 1874-12-26

- p 1
/ CafFey John Brown, James Hart,
| D. Davis, j. 3. Sawyer, T. Bui-
lock, s. NJ Evans, j. PacheCa. IT
Is r. Ho't o. Reirhenbach.
Joseph Perrin, j Cahnl. ON tn
18th Of November, At 1890 p. n q,
jury retired for deliberati0n. At
11:20 of the 18th, having been out
nearly twenty four hours and not
being able to agree, and stating
to the court there was no pro-
liability of agreeing, by consent of
all counsel, the jury were dis
charged.
THE SECOND TRIAL.
The second trial began Novem.
Der 26, 1874. The following jury
was impanneled: J. NJ. OchOa. F.
Tapie, r. Plumridge, F. j. Beales,
IC. G. Jones, VIM. Wakefield, B.
Palm, J. l. Hunt, J. Lucke, j G
Hucke, III. w. D0dd and d.
NemitZ.
| The evidence shows substantial
ly that The prisoner Holmes and
the deceased. Duffield, both claim
ed adverse interests in the Bronco
mine; that Holmes for himself
and others was working on the
mine about June 5, of this year;
that Duffield had repeatedly de,
clared that he would kill any body
he found in possession of that
mine, mentioning Holmes among
others; that Duffieid was by gen.
eral reputation a violent, turbu-
lent and dangerous man; in the
habit of going armed with six
shooters, derringers and bowie
knife, ard given to use these wea-
pons upon slight provocatinn
winch threats and character we're
Communi ,ated 70 defend and prior
To the killing; that GA the SIN Of
June, Dufield came TO the mine
and approached the house where
Holmes was, giving three ioud
calls rs he approached; that hol-
mes picked up g shot gun and
stepped GU s.OouU uou IeeG ron
the door, advancing quarterly to-
wards Duffield who Was then dis
tant about thirty or forty feet and
approaching at a fast walk, with
no weapons in sight; that Holmes
said to Duffield: 81 understand
you have come here to drive me
off. Now keep away from here"
That Duffield continued to adj
vauce swinging his hat in front of
his breast, but saying nothing,
that Holmes said again: keep
away from here" and about that
time Dufieid being some fifteen
feet distant, Holmes fired and
DuffieId fell mOrtally wounded,
dying in a few moments.
THE DEFENSE.
The claim was that Holmes act
ed in necessary self-defense; that
he was protecting his property
and his person against man who
was evidently making n felOniou5
attack; that he had good reason
to believe that DafieId was armed
with concc led weapons, and that
if he allowed him 10 approach
close enough, he, Holmes, had
good reason to believe that Duff
field would Kill him.
THE PROSECUTION.
It was contended on the other
side that Holmes had purposely
placed himself Ia the nnSitinn hn
was iog-l al tne time of the XIII
ing; that be Wen. 70 tie mine
with knowledge Of 1uf5ieid 5
thre.ts, a4L accepted an Interest
ia the mine with the knowledge
Of such q situation OF affairs; that
he had gone there Wl%n e deliber-
ate purp5- concerning Datfie!d il
the latter o,Iouru make any thing
like a hostile appearance there,
and finally that he was not justi-
fed in the homicide, not having
done his best to avoid the difficult
ty.
CHANGE 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 Of kill in defense of pro-
perry, but you must understand
that one is not justified in law in
killing in defense of property
against mere trespasser upon
such property. The only killing
which in this Territory is just
tifiable in the matter of defending
property, is when the trespasser
manifestly intends to commit a
felony, or where any person or
persons manifestly intend and en-.
deavor, in violent, riotOus and
tumultuous manner, to enter the
habitatiOn of another for the pur-
pose of assaulting or offering per-
sOnal violence to any person dwell
ling or being therein.
KILLING IN SELF DEFENSE.