The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1875-03-11


try, with whom he drank, and that now
she was going to drink with her friends.
1t was one of these low, drunken rows,
where no one could tell what the trouble
was about. The parties were all so crazed
with drink that they evidently knew but
little about the affair
]. L. Jones, Prosecuting Attorney, con-
Quoted the prosecution, and George W.
johnson and R. H. Jones conducted the
defense, claiming that the cutting was
done in self defense.
The charge of the Court was very full
and clear, and appeared to be satisfactory
to the attorneys on both sides. The jury
retired at nine oclock on Wednesday
night, and were in their room all night.
About ten o'clock on Thursday they sent
for further instructions, and were brought
into Court and received further instruc-
tions as to the law in regard to self de-
fense. The Court charged that where
party was assaulted with deadly weapons,
such as a pistol or slung shot, and be-
lieved that he was in danger of losing
his life, or was in danger of receiving
great bodily harm, he was justified in
using deadly weapon, or even in taking
the life of his assailant. If man has
reasonable ground for believing, and does
believe, that deadly assault is about to
be made upon him, he is justified in
using deadly weapons, although, in point
of fact, no deadly assault was about to be
made. But if the party brought on the
assault, or made the first assault, he must
not use deadly weapons until he had
/ made every effort to escape, or had re-
treated as far as he could.
In haitian hour the jury agreed upon
verdict of assault with intent to wound
State of Ohio VS.. James Freeman and
com mplainant was Michael Parker. The
Prosecuting Attorney raised the question
whether it was his duty as Prosecuting g
Attorney to attend to peace warrant
cases. The Court remarked that it was
not probably any part of the official duty
of the Prosecuting Attorney to attend to
such cases, although it had been almost
the universal practice. The Prosecuting
Attorney said he would attend to the
present case, as it might be unjust to the
complainant, he having depended upon
him, but he would now give public no
tice that in future he would not attend
to such cases unless employed to do SO,
as any other attorney.
Levi DUNCAN, counsel for defendants,
raised the question as to the sutficiency
of the affidavit, claiming that it was in
the alternative. The Court held that il
the affidavit stated that complainant was
afraid of personal violence, or injury to
property, it would be bad, but in this
case it charged that complainant was
afraid that defendants would assault and
beat him, or shoot him. This being only
a complaint of fear of injury to the per
son, was good.
Michael Parker, the complainant, tei
tilted that he and defendants reside il
Raysville On Christmas day, 1874, wit
ness had difficulty in the store of hi
brother-in-law, l. II. Mccormick, with {
brother of defendants, and witnes:
knocked Buck Freeman down with {
stool. Buck is man, larger than wit
ness. Defendants then rushed into the
store, and James Freeman swore be
would beat the life out of witness. He
was prevented from assaulting witness
by persons present. He attempted to
get over the counter to get at him. He
said he would never do any work unit
he got at witness-he would steal corr
and chickens and eat them there unit
witness came out. Taylor Freeman tolc
James to wait until he came out ane
then they would beat the life out of him
Witness was locked in the store unit
about nine o'clock at night, when ht
went to his fathers house, mile distant
This was on Friday night, and he stale
at his fathers until Sunday morning
when he went home, and on the same
day went to Esq. Rowland's and got ;
warrant, and had the parties arrested.
Harrison Mccormick was the next wit
ness He was clerk in the store of his
brother, where the difficulty arose. His
testimony was substantially the same a:
that of Parker.
Isaac Clark was the next witness. Hi:
testimony was substantially the same a:
that of the other witnesses. He saic
there was crowd in the store during the
fuss. and several of them had been drink
ing. Witness took an active part in pro
tecting Parker from the threatened vic
lence, going with him to his fathers
house, and going with him on Sunday tc
Esq Rowland's to get the warrant.
On cross examination he. said the Free
mans had been drinking, and were en-
ragged. The parties all reside in Rays
vile, and there has been no trouble
since, but the parties have been under
bonds.
There were two other witnesses, but
they did not differ from the others.
The defendants testified James Free
man did not differ from the witnesses for
the prosecution, but Taylor Freeman ut.
terly denied making any threats.
There were couple of other witnesses,
but nothing new was brought out.
Parker is small, weakly looking
young man. Defendants are robust har-
dy looking men.
The Court held that it was not strange
that the defendants should be greatly
excited under the circumstances, and say
/