The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-10-31

the carriage Mrs. SULLIVAN and Mr.. HlEFoRD and the
Ssse Nv S aasroSD 60 ass sas sS "a
AROUND NJ suLryss scr W. ne sat Mr. y ,1
down as Ssp hesra la @o 5o GSt s
n n n%foEp ", ms b no on NE bowels and sai1
sgLLivAs GcarIiSs i T ny n SS lie S sad, did
thought you were some friend Of his" w.
This account OF the killing was corrob-
Grated by other witnesses. some of whom
swore that HANFoRD struck Mrs. SuLII-
VAN In the scuffle which ensued after he
| had been Knocked down. IL was also
proved that neighbor of Mr.. HANFoRD's,
named DUNHAs, was holding his arm when
he was knocked down; and that DUNIIAM
| likewise held him by the arm when the
shot from SULLIVAN was fred, UANFoRD
| having just made pass at some person
whom the witness could not see.
The defence was based on the assumption
| that the shooting was done in self-defeucp :
| that HASFoRD, after attacking SuILIvAN's
wife was coming toward him aggrcssively.
when he fired; and that the accused did
not fire tho shot with the intention of kill
ing, but only for tho purpose OF disabling
his adversary. The jury could not agree
quittal TO one forEonviction, according TO
report.
Judge McALLIsrER IL accused by those
who are dissatisfied with his course, of
having shown strong bias In favor OF the
accused throughout the trial. and. specifi-
cally, with having given the jury instruc-
tons that were not in accordance with the
laws Of Illinois, He instructed them that
| II, after HANruRD had been knocked down,
| SULLIVAN being pulled off and held so
| that, in fact, his attack ceased, and HAN
FORD, getting up, attacked aud struck Mrs.
SULLIVAN, then HANFoRD became the ae-
| gressor, and the rights of self-defence
thereafter Immediately attached to SULLI-
VAN in reference to his wife and himself,
and he had a right to defend either him
self or his wife rs fully as If HANroRD had
been the aggressor from the first; that
citizen had n right to carry q loaded pistol
for the protection of ones person from All
unlawful attack and that a well-grounded
fear and apprehension OF danger was
enough to constitute case of self-defence,
in regard to which the prisoner was the
sole judge of the situation, provided that
he acted like reasonable man. He said:
"I at the time Of the shooting, the defendant from
the whole conduct Of nASioRb toward himself and
had TeS;Sns6e ana wesroundsd fear OF reSefyng
hen i6s Killing sss justlhsble aud i s pdi.peSsa
apparently well grounded"
On the other hand. Judge McALLIsrER
instructed the jury that IL the jury be-
leved from the evidence that the de-
PENDANT killed HANFoRD with malice
aforethought, If 1t was not necessary, or
apparently necessary, to save his own life
OF the life of his wife, or to prevent his or
her receiving great bodily HARM then he
is guilty Of murder, ana the jury should
find him guilty"
Unfortunately for the good of the pub
lie, the question of race and religious faith
has exerted great influence upon the
popular mind in the discussions which have
arisen out of this case. SULLIVAN is of
Irish descent, his wife is Of Irish birth, aud
both are Roman Catholics, while HAHFoRD
was n Protestant, who claimed that SUI
LIvAS and his wife had been trying TO put
the schools under Roman Catholic con-
troll. We can see nothing in Judge Nc
ALLIsTERs instructions to the jury which
could justify n conscientious juror in re-
turning Il verdict for the defendant IL he
did not believe that the latter acted in
self-defence. Probably the truth is that
the testimony Of witnesses that HANFoRD
struck Mrs. SULLIVAN after he had been
knocked down, turned the scale. In such
case the sympathies OF the jury would
naturally go toward the woman they be-
lieved to have been unjustly assaulted, and
thence TO the husband us natural conse-
quence.