The Tiffin tribune. (Tiffin, Ohio) 1868-1887, 1876-12-07

]
ting instrument. The first blow in
my judgment on MAnhart was by and
with knife. But what can we cav
as 10 the purpose OF these parties. A /
msn who resorts to such instruments,
means to take life. He Immediately /
after the frat makes another thrust, /
and IL was that one that let out the |
life Of Manhart. Did Danlap have |
his knife out Yes he went with his 1
knife open and ready. He struck him !
with knife. Could he say did not /
mean to kill, but to cut into the 1
fieshy part only? No. Then he 4
came there with 9 purpose What 3? /
no purpose formed The second /
blow be struck was most fatal. Can
there be any doubt? No, they gather I
ed together and they proposed to do I
this. Where was Matthew Green ? /
Was he gone to get his coat. as they
attempt to say? No! Green aD-
preached on Manhart's side and while
Dunlap struck him in front Green
struck him in tina back. It Is not my
province to comment on Green's
actions here-another jury will hear
that. But Green struck one, two, yea
three times, and until friends inter-
fsred and took him away. Yves not
the purpose then revealed ?
Again, gentlemen, il this purpose
was not formed, what is the meaning
OF all these wounds on Manhart
Whatdoes ths testimony show as to
the Viciousness OF these wounds ?
Deep-some Of them struck the bone
and glanced off. Can you say that he
did not intend to kill Manhart He
gives and We give you these actions
for you to determine the grade Of his
crime. Now it may sometimes hap
pen that parties in = conflict take out
knife after the contest begins. But
is that this case Does not the wit
ness say they meant business Pass
8 step further. These parties were
scuffling. Manhart had his hands on
Dunlap's shoulders. Dunlap's hands
were not clinched on Manhart. Man.
hart, as soon as he felt he was stabbed
threw Dunlap from him. What is his
dying statement? He makes his !
dying statement right here, and 1t is !
competent for you to receive it as
such, for he was under the impression !
that he was killed. He says-'yOu
Mr.. Dunlap, have stabbed me-" "yOu .
have killed me-" Dunlap said in an {
swer ''if you want to Iive keep dI0dy c
from me-" Pretty talk for q man
who had stabbed q man. Better that !
Mr.. Dunlap and Mr.. Green had done
as Green says: "Goue home" But
now, instead, he shows no such pur- .
pose. These words will ring in Dun :
laps ears always. Now again, on
Benham's porch, Manhart repeated :
the charges to Dunlap. I DON'T want j
To begthe question, but to discuss this:
Can The defense excuse Dunlap for this
on the ground that he was taking up
Green's quarrel. What excuse the
crime on that trivial circu instance.
Dunlap had committed the high z
est crime. What is there OF 1t q
Msnhart was being led away. b
He saw Dunlap still there, g
and with system giving way-iu his
Wednesdays and argues with
Dunlap, pleading to know some ex- y
cuse for it, and saying "IYhy did you
do 1t 2'' And the heartless answer of
Dunlap-stsy away from me II you 4
natural, manly, after he had taken v
his life thus to speak c
Now then, gentleman, you have n
heard the facts and my version OF n
this case. The court has given you L
the three grades OF crime. Do the
facts In this case justify you in find i
ing that Dunlap killed Manhart pur- il
pcsely II so he Is guilty Of murder
ing in the first degree! It takes de- e
liberate purpose aud malice. Some y
of the books define deliberate as u
turning It over in the mind" They u
had time to deliberate Then there &
must be q purpose l have argued to y
you that that purpose was made in q
this time. Wss there malice
have said that we cannot enter into
the heart and see what Is there. We y
can't look at this, save by the dctiOnsl o
| have argued to you that malice y
must have been In his heart before, o
while talking with Nedry, and that
changed 1t to Man "
hart.
Now the indictment contains three :,
grades Of crime II Is your province
to determine OF what grade this ~
prisoner Is guilty. That there has =
Is no question, and have shown to :,
known to the law But suppose you =
differ from me Let US look at the =,
next grade-whSt Is murder in the -
second degree ? 1t also is Intentional =,
Killing! now, what elements are =
lacking in the second degree, from u
tirst degree How do they differ
You will see in q moment the diff -
ference It is murder with o pur-
pose-s erminatIon-simply, with II
out premeditdtion. a.
Applying this, suppose that these
parties did not pre-determine it, but
did purposely kill. Then he is guilty n
2f murder in the second degree. APP T
ply the facts to this case, and If you p,
ind he is not guilty OF first, he
Is then guilty Of second. Didn't Dun 81
zap purpOsely kill Manhart? ? Didn't n
be WALK in and purposely strike
Didn't he plunge his knife In the n
bowels of Manhart ? Didn't he re-
peat his blows? He can't say after IS
mis- actions, ST didn't intend to kill L
him." Then he purposely killed
Manhart. II the. elements Of pre- g.
are wanting, then 1t must
be murder in the second degree. Did di
be do it maliciously? If he did not b.
ne do it? What for q? Certainly not %
10 self defense. 1t must, then, have &C
been maliciously. See how the ac- tt
I
How all the evening he had his knife Z
put. Did he do it to protect himself?I
Why, all his kindred were safe No,
Il seems as II that night he seemed
bound to be revenged on somebody.
But suppose it should seem to be =,
neither OF these crimes, you have re- . a
eeived the law from the court, and l =
would thank his Honor for stating it =.
20 plain to you. Now what is man. s.
slaughter Is 1t that man should 90
kill another unlawfully-it may be ~
without malice, or even without the -
purpose of killing. Can this be done? =
may think my life Is in danger from =,
another man, and coming in contact
With him l kill him. The law is =.
broken. 1t was not altogether in :,
although 1 believed ~
had the right, but made mistake. n
The crime is manslaughter. 1t =,
was done without malice. 1t -
may be done on sudden %
Juarrel. But the law Is brOken-1 =.
have committed \ crime. That =,
crime would be manslaughter. :,
When can you go in this case and -
ind that the party is only guilty Of ..
? When these parties -
mad separated, were cooled of, he -
meditsted and then he goes forward a.
and strikes, and the blows, or one OF ~
them, is fatal
Now, gentlemen, have endeavor-
I'd to do my duty. Personally l have
against this prisoner and bl
wish him no harm. But then 1t is a ST
higher duty for me to perform. The X
public peace has been disturbed (; the b,
life of q human being has been taken. 81
For myself could say go and sin no a:
more. But your life and my life HI
would be unsafe. It behOOves yOC to Iii
20 forward in the fearless discharge d,
Of your duty. Dunlap, alone IS re- oil
spOnsible for the consequences CT this cC
unlawful set. Dunlap is the only party q
who is responsible to the people, not
you for the result Of his crime. b,
1 therefore beg you, while symps- q
thizing with the family Of this man, d
to discharge your duties and preserve 81
the dignity OF the law, and manifest
the determination TO protect sOciety.
thank you for your attention, gen.
tlemen.