The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1876-12-28

| N'" "V' vi MINING bnould appear, TO
you, by the weight Of the testimony, to
have been necessary In self defence Of tn o
prisoner, not only would malice be dis
proved, but the act would be held in law
TO be Justihable, and the defendant should
be acquitted.
But, If you find such act of killing the
deceased, to have been purposely and ma
liciously done, you must further find,
Fourthly.-That the act was done by
her with deliberate and premeditdted NAL
ice. l have already explained to you the
meaning premeditation and deIibera-
ton, but will again say that premedita-
tion means thought of, contemplated, or
designed before the commission of the
ct,-and deliberation means that the
project, or contemplated act was by re-
Election weighed and considered 80 that a
settled and sedate purpose TO do the &c It
was formed, and approved by the judg-
ment, before its commission. If the act
was deliberate, it presupposes premedi-
tation, for there can be no deliberation
without premeditation. But the converse
of this proposition Is not true, for there
may be premeditation without delibera-
ton. For although the deed may hav O
been thought of, or contemplated In ad-
vance, yet if it was committed suddenly,
upon the formation of purpose to do 30,
which had not yet acquired a settled and
sedate character, which was not yet
weighed and approved by the judgment,
there would have existed premeditated,
but not deliberate malice. In suoh case
you could not convict of murder in the
first degree, for AS have said, and as the
statute provides, TO constitute that crime,
there must, among other Ingredients, ex-
ist both premeditated and deliberate NAL
ice.
But If you find, beyond reasonable
doubt, in addition to the other ingredi-
tents of murder in the first degree, to
which have called your attention, ,ethst
such act was committed by the prisoner
with premeditated and deliberate malice,
you should find her guilty, as charged In
the Indictment Of murder in the first de-
gree.
And deem it important here TO say,
that unlike the rule as TO purpose and
malice, there is no presumption of pre-
meditation or deliberstion arising from
the mere act of taking the life Of deceased
by shooting him with pistol. But you
must consider the whole testimony even
if you find she so killed the deceased,
and its force must be such as TO satisfy
you beyond the existence of reasonable
doubt, that the deed was done with pre-
meditation and deliberation before you
can find that such was the fact.
1t is claimed by the State, that the test
. imony shows such threats and evidences
of preparation and forethought as to fully
establish both premeditation and deliber-
alton, all Of which is denied by the pris-
oner and her counsel.
If the prisoner so then and there killed
the said Edward Richardson, as described
in the indictment, purpOsely and mali
ciously, but without premeditation and
deliberation, your verdict should be
guilty of murder in the second degree.
If the prisoner unlawfully killed the
deceased, as described in the indictment,
but without malice, your verdict should
be guilty Of manslaughter.
But before you can find the prisoner
guilty of either of the grades of crime
charged in the indictment, you must de-
termine whether or no the prisoner COM
mitted the act in necessary and legal self
defence.
What then is the right of self defence as
recognized by the law Of this Slater 1t
is this: That homicide is justifable on
the ground of self defence, where the
slayer, in the careful and proper use of
his faculties, in good faith believes, and
has reasonable grounds to believe, that
he is in imminent danger of death or
great bodily harm, and that his only
means of escape will be by taking the life
Of his assailant, although in fact, he Is
mistaken as to the existence or immi-
nence Of the danger
The prisoner, through her counsel
claims, and the testimony tends to show
that she was assaulted at the time in
question, at night, while she was asleep,
by the deceased, her husband, who was
then occupying the same bed with her,
and by him cut and wounded on the neck
with sharp razor, and that immediately
in the struggle which ensued, he shot her
with pistol, the bullet striking and
wounding her in the left side, and that
she then shot him in self defence.
If you find by the weight of all the
testimony in the case, that although she
killed the deceased, she was so assaulted
and wounded by the deceased, and that
she, in the careful and proper use Of her
faculties, in good faith believed, and had
reasonable grounds to believe that she
was In imminent danger of death, or great
bodily harm from such violence, and
that her only means of escape were by
taking thslife' of her assailant, she had
the right under the law to shoot and kill
him, although in fact she was mistaken
as to the existence or imminence of the
danger; and if she did so under such cir
cumstances, she was justifable In the act,
and will be entitled to your verdict.
But while the burden of proving that
she killed him in self defence by pre-
ponderance of the testimony rests on the
prisoner, she is entitled to rely upon, and
have you consider, from testimony intro
duced by the State, tending to show that,
such was the fact, as well as testimony
introduced by herself.
1 will now call your attention TO the.