Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1877-02-07
THE LAW OF sEEF.DEFESsB.
How 10 is Charged 20 Jarfes by
Judge LOgwOOd, of the CriminNl
COuFt.

OS~
We have often fidiculed the stretch
given to the theory or law Of selfdefsnse
in the courts Of justice Of Tennessee by
lawyers and Jurors, The judges charge
generally gives the law 8 strict coustruc.
ton. but the juries being " judges of tho
law and the facts" too often knock the
judges construction into u cooked hat.
We append the charge given by Judge
Logwood, Of u Criminal Court. 10 the
R~sesnover Ellis murder case on this
question Of self.defense, and 1t explains
the theory or law ia q clear manner.
The judge in bis charge on this point
said; f
GENTLEMEN oF THE JURY-It is urged
by the defense that Thomas R~eesuoyer
acted 10 seIf.defense 10 shooting and
killing Samuel Ellip, or that be was ius-
tilted under the law, according to the
facts, ~intaking his life. Before you should
arrive at the conclusion that the Loni-
eide was excusable or j~usti6able, evi.
denee should be satisfactory to your
minds that Thomas Reesnover was free
from blame; that he did not intention
ally bring on or seek the difficulty, and
that at thu time of, or Immediately pre-
ceding the giving Of the fatal shot BY
him, he had reasonable grounds to be.
heve that he was in danger Of losing his
life, or that he was in danger of great
bodily harm at the hands of the deceased,
that the circumstances Immediately sur.
rounding him must have been of such a
nature as to justify him in honestly be.
lievinR such danger to be imn inent. The
evidence need not be conclusive that the
danger was actual and present, but
there must have been not only an honest
belief, but reasonable grounds for such
belief on the part Of Thomas Reesnover
that such danger was imminent at the
time tho fatal shot was given. The belief
that such danger was imminent must not
arise from the too susceptible fears of a
timid, cowardly person, but there must
have been such appearance Of danger as
would reasonably cause q person Of ordi.
nary courage, manhood and common
ssnse N he wsrrantad in tho 1917 -.
the danger axisted AZ tba momon,e s .:~N
he fa,a1 sbot was 6rsJ GnS ~ a
the sole judges who are to decide, from
the whole evidence in the case, whether
SUCH reasonable grounds OF belief really
existed. and whether Tbomas Reesnova,
honestly entertained inch hslisf 80
whether the defendants brongbt On 49,.
difficulty Intentionally. In arrivics a,
a conclusion on these no;nla Won
may look at any threats The nToof
may convince YOU of that the de.
ceased may nave made against the
gsrsou or life Of Thomaa Rsesnovar.
whether. if such tbreats were mada tbsg
were communicated IN Thomas Rass.
mover before the killing. whether Il h.
made such threats. he sought ~ n,ss,
snce of Thomas Reesnover IN order tba,
he might execute them; or wbether he
at the time of the fatal MEETING was nj
in search of Thomas Reesnoysr and H.
meeting, on the part Of deceased was 40.
cidentaI, and alter such accidental meet.
ing be (Ellis) conducted himself In sucb
a threating manner as to Justify the he.
lief on the part of Thomas Reesdover
that be then and there intended to eye.
cute the threats. Ifthe evidence satis
6es you that the deceased made spcb
threats against Thomas Ressnover and
that the threats were communicated 10
Thomas before the fatal meeting, and.
then when they met, neither of the Rees.
lover assaulted or attempted to assault
him nor acted in a threatening manpar
,ovards him ana ba IL ~ -~-S