The star. (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1874-1875, 1875-01-15
La W REPORT.
COMMON PLEAS.

| from DelOW Win SOOQ SUCCESS.
-->sS.-
LAW kEPORE
| COMMON PLEAS.
The State v. Henry Horstenmeyer.
The defendant was indicted for man
slaughter in assaulting and unlawiully
killing John Williams on the 2lst of Sep.
tember last.
! The Prosecutor, in opening the case to
the jury, said that on the night of the
shooting, the deceased ana two or three
other young men concluded to go some-
where and get some apples. They went
to the orchard Of the defendant and were
going toward his house, having picked up
u few apples, when the defendant came
out and fired at them, without any warn
ing whatever, killing the deceased.
MIR. Forrest, who appeared for the de-
fendant, stated that the defendant was,
the owner of small farm near Lockland,
the farm being divided by. the Short-line
railroad track. After dark, somewhere
in the neighborhood of nine o'clock, while
engaged In attending his stock, he saw
by The dim moonlight several persons in
his orchard. lie, in common with his
neighbors, had suffered considerably
from depredations of parties who stole
his fruit in the night time. The defend
ant started toward the party armed. On
arriving in close proximity he found they
| were. three roughs, and not boys, as sta
ted by the Prosecutor, the deceased him
self being forty years OF age. He hallooed
to them, endeavoring to trighten them.
One of them hid behind tree, and the
other two came toward him. Thinking
| they were armed, and being alone, he
placed his gun on the fence, he being on
| the opposite side of the fence to them,
| and fired as they advanced
| Mr.. Forrest claimed that his client was
justified, under the circumstances, in
shooting as he did, under the belief that
his own life or person was in danger.
1t would be shown that these young men
went to the defendants orchard for the
purpose of stealing apples. The defend
ant was himself frightened. and on the
explosion of the gun, thinking he had
merely frightened the parties away, ran
toward his house. Subsequently heven-
tured out, and finding that the deceased
| was dead, started for the city and gave
himself up, thereby giving kno wledge OF
| the affair which might not otherwise
have. been known. The defendant was
truly sorrowtul for the untimely end of
the deceased, but claimed that the PROV
ocation was sufficient to Justify him in
protecting himself.
The first witness called was Michael
l
the party who went for apples, young
man named Mitchell being with them
The deceased and himself were en-
ployes of Mr.. Budd, ,brick-maker, in Lock-
land. Williams spoke to him in the af-
ternoon of the day of the killing and
asked him to 20 down to the orchard
with him and get some apples. They
went down and had got some apples anu
were starting out Of the orchard when
they saw man coming toward them.
Williams said il the man said any thing
to them they would pay for the apples.
They had not quite reached the fence
when the firing begun, being about 10 or
20 feet from it. Nothing was said by the
defendant when he fired. The defendant
came down the railroad track and went
up the embankment to the fence. 1t was
between six and seven O'Clock. Will
liams carried the bag in which the ap-
Piles were placed.
ross-eXamination-Did not know who
the party was who fired; Williams said
he wanted to buy apples; passed by the
defendants house to get 10 the orchard,
Williams saying they would 60 to the
orchard and see the apples.
Case in progress.
Francisco Llado u Co. v. The Cincin.
natl Wine Company. This was suit
upon draft for $244 drawn by the plain
titfs upon the defendants, and accepted
by them in payment of bale of corks,
sold to the defendants upon sample in
1872. Payment OF the draft was subse-
quently refused and protested. The de-
tense admitted the acceptance Of the
draft, hut claimed that it was accepted
before the corks arrived, upon the suppo.
eition that the corks would be of the
same quality as the sample: but the bal
ance were of an inferior quality. They
thereupon notified the plaintiffs that
they were willing to pay for half the
corks, and that the plaintiffs might take
the balance away. They now express a
willingness TO pay half the amount of
the draft and deliver the corks not used
by them. The plaintiffs, by reply, deny
the material allegations OF The answer.