The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1877-04-09

| y
but that he had sufficient reason to be-
lieve that he was In such danger. The ev-
idence shows long standing feud be-
tween them, based on the different sections
of country from which they came. Fol-
lowing this we have the evidence of the
terrible quarrels, almost battles, beginning
way back in June. They ran through
June, July and August to the morning Of
the shooting. Only three days before that
the McCues friends laid In wait for Patton
and he 10 told Of IL. He secs that 1t is but
carrying out Of the warfare; he also hears
the threats these men had made against
him; mob was TO be formed to attack
him; he knew of 1t and that he had incurr-
ed the displeasure of these men by COM
planning of them for selling rum to his
boys. Wasn't he justified in believing
that this weapon was necessary for pro-
tection2 1t is no answer for
them to say that he was ready for an af-
tray. The question is what did he believe
was necessary for his protection, can go
farther than this. The history of these
quarrels shows that John Patton was not
the aggressor. He did not decline. He is
not the man for that, but he was not the
aggressor. The history of them all shows
that. He had rights. He had a family
NSPShNShb vi hiu huu hC ndu u llBul W kO
daily to this quarry to work, and IL it was
necessary for him to carry a weapon TO 90
there in safety he had right to carry that
weapon. You will bear in mind that this
is a question OF his actual belief, and in
judging this you must consider the kind of
man he is, quick, impulsive and ready to
jump at conclusions not the kind of man
you are, not the man II would be best for
him TO be-but such as God made him YOU
must judge him.
The court here adjourned till two
o'clock.
AFTERNOON.
Col. Veazey continued What con-
vinces me more than anything else that
murder was not in his heart is the fact that
in the morning when his son got possession
of him he walked off quietly and invoked
the majesty of the law. This case hinges
on the second ARRAY Then he wasn't the
aggressor. 1t was unfortunate that he
went there then, but it wasn't wrong. He
had a right to go there. 1t was his place
of business and he may have felt that he
was safer with an officer than without. He
did not provoke the quarrel. he did not in
terfere with McCue or the officer or anyone
there; after seeing the process served he
started at once for his home. There is no
evidence that he stopped to provoke
quarrel. He stopped when he saw the me-
tons. He knew they meant something and
he stopped to see what. He didn't stop
long. The testimony is that only two or
three minutes elapsed between the two de-
partures. Barney McCue started immedi.
ately after the finishing of the reading
perhaps before. The officer saw there
was some terrible purpose in his mind and
called him back. He came back and then
started again in the same general direction
little to the left. Before he left
he passed word in low
tone of voice to his brother and Harley.
They strip off their coats and follow Bar
ney. What did they follow him for but to
attack Patton? Nothing. Their purpose was
to get up an affray, not to avoid one. The
proof is that they went up and began the
fight by hurliRg missile after missile at
Patton: say l am warranted in standing
here and claiming that you shall fed that |
these men begun the assault On John |
OF an assault. They could have avoided it |
by simply turning around. Why we're they |
waiting at the blacksmith shop If not for a |
chance of assaulting John Patton?
Now we come to the point of justifiable |
homicide, the right of this man to defend |
himself. He had no safe oppol tunity to |
escape this shower of deadly missiles. |
What could he do but what he did do, use |
his pistol. John Dryer testified that he |
warned them by saying: "Stand back or |
will shoot" That pistol cansed the death |
of Barney McCue, but without it John |
Patton would have lain in the bottom of |
that quarry. This is the fair deduction |
from this evidence. The speaker then pro-
ceeded to discuss the probable truthfulness |
of some of the evidence.
He closed with an appeal TO the jury to |
temper their judgment with mercy, and |
laid the blame of the murder upon rum |
which he raid caused it.
Estates Attorney George M. Fuller closed |
the case for the prosecution handling the |
evidence skillfully and making some strong
points against the prisoner.
JUDGE POWERS CHARGE.
Judge Powers charged the jury at con-
siderable length, laying down the law with |
great clearness and was attentively fol- |
lowed not only by the jury but by large
part of the bar. We present very briefly
few of the points.
He first defined the two degrees of MUIR
der and manslaughter. He then charged
that every man when attacked with great
suddenness and violence feels sudden anger.
If he then attacks his assailant it is heat of
blood and not malice or that cold blooded
desire for revenge which constitutes muir
der. When death ensues from a sudden
transport of passion, if with reasonable
provocation IL is granddaughter.
If man deliberately intends to kill
another and does kill him it is murder.
This is grounded in the principle that
man intends the usual consequence of his
acts.
To make out their case the prosecution
must prove that McCue is dead, that he
came to his death at the hands of
the respondent that the respondent
was actuated by malice and intended
to kill the deceased. We start with
presumption of the respondents inno-
cence. The burden of proof rests on the
state. They are to salty you beyond a
reasonable doubt of his guilt. This means
an abiding moral certainty and not abso-
lutte certainty.
You are to examine the prior relations of
the parties and say what each had a right
to expect on the happening of quarrel.
What had the respondent, with his knowl-
edge, right to expect. He had right to
carry pistol If he had reason to fear bodi-
ly harm. 1t is his right to defend himself
and to use all necessary means to that end.
Did the respondent leave the shopfor home
with no further purpose of quarrelp If
he did and was attacked he had right to
resist If necessary. If, on the contrary, he
sought to renew the quarrel be is not ex-
cused on the ground of self defense. 1.-THE
McCues followed him and assaulted him on
his way home the ARRAY in the morning is
no excuse for them, aud no threats made
by the respondent would justify them. II
you find b ewas assaulted be was justified
in using such force as was necessary to his
defence. If his assailant was known to be
violent the degree of force to be used must
be measured by the respondents danger.
He was not bound to wait for severe
wound before nrOtaniin0 himaalf and ha