The Andrew County Republican. [volume] (Savannah, Mo.) 1871-1876, 1875-11-05

! III Injury, anu IhtiC ""H i'tHpii''i'
cause to apprehend immediate danger
of such design being then and there ac
/ coraplShcd. and the defendant shot and
| killed the said Norrick to- prevent the
! accomplishment of such design and to
/ save himself irofH great personal injury,
then such killing was iuStifiable upon
the mvotsnd of self defense, and YOU
SHOULD liad him NOT guilty.
3. 1t is not essential to this defense,
that there should be actual ana real
| danger. or that the peril of great bodily
/. harm should be really imminent. 1t
from the circumstances actually attend
ing the situation az the time Of the
shooting. there was reasonable grOand
to believe that the deceased designed
to DO the defendant some great personal
injury at that time, and the defendant
shot and killed Norrick to avert such
injury, anh not in spirit of revenge, he
was iustifiabIe, although there may
have been no design on the part of said
Norrick to do him any serious injury,
nor any danger that it would he then
done; the defendant had the right to
act upon the appearances. And in de-
Gliding upon the situation, and whether
the defendant had good reason to ap-
prehend real danger at the time, the
general reputation of the deceased in
! the nefghborhood, as to being violent.
! turbulent, or dangerous. or quiet aad
peaceable, aS shown by the evidence,
may be considered, as also any threats
which the evidence may show to have
been made by Norrick against the de-
! tendant.
But neither threats nor general bad
character of the deceased as to turbu-
lance and violence. would justify the
defendant: such matters can only be
considered in connection with other
facts and circumstances tending to show
that the defendant was IN danger or had
good reason to belieye that he was in
imminent danger of great bodily harm
from the deceased.
may have honestly believed he was in
danger; it must be made to appear from
the evidence that the defendant did
have good cause to believe that lie was
in immediate danger of receiving great
bodily harm from the deceased at the
time of the shooting. If he shot when
there was not reasonable cause, from all
the evidence, to believe that he was in
imminent danger of receiving great
bodily harm, he acted at his peril and
cannot escape the consequences.
10. Aud ii You find from the evidence
that the defendant and the deceased had
difficulty and the defendant was the
active inducing cause of the crcumStan-
ces which provoked Ghe difficulty, or
voluntarily and.of his own free will and
inclnation, entered into the difficulty.
and shot and killed the deceased. Jacob
Norrick, then there is no selt-dclensc in
the case, and you should not acquit on
that ground and in that case it makes
no difference how imminent the peril
NAV have been in which the defendant
was placed during the difficulty.
II. 1t YOU find from The evidence tnat
the defendant and the deceased, Nor
rick, having malice and hatred toward
each other. voluntarily engaged in a
difficulty over the division of their cat
tie, the defendant trying to divide them
bv taking the pick and the said Norrick
and that during the conflict the delen-
dant willtullv and maliciouslv shot and
killed said NOrrick. he is guilty OF mur-
der and there can be no sell-drtense in
the case, and it makes no difference
4 whether The said NOrrick was aSsaulting
the defendant or not; for it is the set
tied law that where two parties youn-
tarlv and of their own free will and in
clnat;on enter into difficulty and fight
with deadly weapons. and one kills the
other. the SLAYER is guilty OF murder,and
it makes no difference which gave the
first blow, or made the first assault.
II. 1t the jury find from the evidence
that the defendant and the deceased
Norrick, were the Joint owners ofa lot
of cattle purchased in Kansas. and that
the defendant came home in advance of
the cattle. it was proper for the deceased
Norrick. to send the defendant word
when the cattle would arrive, and re-
quest him to come and get his share. and
it was proper for the defendant to 90
and take assistance to get his cattle and
other property. but if the parties could
not agree as to how the cattle should be
!, divided, the defendant had no right TO
divide the cattle his own way by force
against the objections and resistance OF
. said NOrrick. but he should have resort
ed to the civil law to settle and secure
his rights in the premises If YOU find
; from the evidence that the defendant,
anticipating 4 difficulty with the deceas-
ed in the division of the cattle, armed
himself with his shot gun and prepared
it for use, and then undertook to divide
the cattle his own way against the pro-
t test and resistance of the deceased, and
: the deceased Norrick undertook to pre-
, vent such division of the cattle, and the
defendant shot and killed NorIick, he
, cannot justify his act on the ground OF
| self-detense. and it makes no difference