The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1877-08-22
be Jury from the words and actions of

and that conduct, and not from the as
sertions of sthe witnesses that the
threats and conduct did render the
danger imminent, ia legal question
growing out of certain facts and not a
fact itself. The question whether the
killing of Radeskie vas unavoidable
and necessary to preserve the prisoners
life, and done in self defense, is the
very issue submitted to the Jury, a le-
gal question to be determined by them
and not by witnesses under the GEM
blance of giving testimony, and that
the State could not be required to ad-
NIT legal questions as evidence"
S. The Counsel for prisoner asked a
witness-"did you hear the deceased,
Radeskie, make on the day of the
killing any threats against the life of
the accused?" Objection being made
by the State, the Court offered to per.
NIT the prisoner to ask witness if he
had ever communicated to him, the
prisoner, any threats made by the de-
ceasedn and if the witness answered
affirmatively, then to allow the ques-
ton propoanded to be put. The pris-
oner refused to put the preliminary
question propounded by the Court, and
then the Court sustained the objected
and the prisoner excepted. 1t is we'll
settled that antecedent threats by the
deceased against the accused, are not
admissible in evidence, unless it ap-
pears that they were communicated to
the accused. Their admissibility de-
ponds upon this as condition prece-
dent; and as their admission would be
illegal without this necessary concom-
liant proof of communication, we think
that the Court may we'll refuse to ad-
nit them until this necessary founda-
ton is laid, just as Courts refuse to
admit the testimony of deceased or alb
sent witnesses until the death or alb
sence is proved. State vs.. Geyor, 81
A. 473.
6. The prisoner also excepted to the
charge of the Judge which was as fol-
lows: eff you are conscious that VOC
know what the law is upon any point
that arise in your deliberations, it is
your right and your duty to follow
your own construction, even though
they may differ from the legal opinion
of the Court upon that point, but if
you feel conscious that you are ifino-
rant of what the law is upon the point
in question, it is your duty to follow
the case as stated by the Court, and to
ask it's instruction upon points Of
which you are ignorant; the law never
intended in making juries Judges of
the law that they should substitute ig-
norance for knowledge, nor for juries
to decide that to be the law which they
in eheir conscience feel that they know
nothing about. Although you are not
lawyers, the law presumes that you
have learned the law of this
case from the law Which has
been expounded to you on the trial.
But knowledge is something tam
gible aud definite, and you must
be conscious that as such you possess
it whenever you differ from the Court
on point of law" The objection to
this charge cannot be that it is too re-
strictive of the powers of Juries.
" hilst fully, and perhaps too fully,
conccding the Jury its powers as Jud-
ges of the law and fact, it wisely and
properly cautions against substituting
their ignorant faDcies and personal
wishes for conscious knowledge and
application of legal principles as bases
of decision.
z. 10 the brief of Counsel for accus-
ed it is stated that it is assigned as er-
ror on the face of the record that the
accused was not arraigned as required
by law. We find no assignment of
errors filed in the record, and even if
the statement in the brief sufficed, the
Counsel has not advised wherein the
defect of arraignment consists, and
inspection of the transcript has failed
to reveal them to US.
We conclude therefore that there is
no error in the verdict and sentence
appealed from, and it is therefore or
dered and decreed that the same be
affirmed with costs.
FISHING TACKLE-A GREAT
L rlilNU VARIETY. SPOON
BAIT and OTHER GOODS IN THAT
LINE. DEALERS SUPPLIED BY
HENRY ST. JOHN.
THE new Jury law, giving i'm
mense power to "five discreet citizens,
good men and true," the selection of
the Jurors for our next District Court,
met on Monday and the great impor