, 1877-10-06


drl o. this week hr was sentenced to
iHe yerr> close confinement THIS WAS
contrary to the expectations ol many
before the tlial. The evidence. however,
drvriup'd some mitigating circumstance
which p'or.d It beyond the power Of the
Jury netting in the capacity OF sensible
men. mirr thririustrurtluus from Judge
Lrwj,-.,o iipi the prisoner guilty Of
any o'Hcr grade Of crime. Those cir.
tun,stmcys wyIr about u, follows That
Howard wns Il qmrrrlsomr, not to say
dangerous man; tIut he had distinctly
ana expressly threatened the lite oi SUI
ion, saying, a short time prcv'ous to the
alli1r, that he had given him tSuItonl
three chances tor his lie AMI he w0ull
Not give blm nDthcr; that Sutton
lnuW these threats had been made; that
the shouting occurred at Sutton's house.
Howard having gone there, and during
the row used very abusive language tO
Sutton; and lastly, that after the shoot
Ing Howard was picked up with pistol
in his ri4ht hand, showing that, TO all
appearance at Itnsr he and gone there
prepared to execute his threat,
We iH,ve hture US the charge given
20 the jury on tins case, hy the Hon. D.
Il Lewis. 1t would be quite interest
in-, no doubt, could We publish this doc
almnt IN full However, in view OF
limited space, II brief outline must suffice
The Judge commenced hy defining
clearly the province Of the Court to he,
first, tn denrc the law; that OF the jury
being tn weigh the evidence and uscer.
tain the truth thcreIrOm, fixing upon
some grade Of CriMc--accorlin to tine
definitions, given by the Court, rs to
what constituted these different grades
Tnrn follows few brief instructions
concerning the evidence, among which
WIS the statement that IL witness is pre-
.unIcd to speak the truth until otherwise
proved, also that the defendant is pre-.
.-umed to he iunoccnt until otherwise
proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
The Judge then referred to SuttOn's at
tempt to Zee Immediately after the shoot
ing, stating that such IN attempt usually
Indicated a consciousness of guilt and
desire to eyade the law, hut that it might
spring from very different motives he
cause the PRISONER, although innocent in
his view of the case, might deem 1t nee
cssary tn his personal safety to flee.
After this came the declaration that the
law pprnlls a person to kill another in
necessary sct-decnse, said killing being
the taken Oft OF human life in case
where the defendant would undoubtedly
have lost Wis le or suffered great bodily
harm had he not killed deceased,
The Judge was very explicit, however
in saying that it did not depend So much
upon the tears which defendant mny
have entertained, as upon the decision
of the jury concerning his grounds for
those fears.
The different grades oi crime were
next defined leaving murder in the first
degree to be where person dcIibcrate-
Iy, purposyly and maliciously takes the
life OF another; murder in the second
degree being the same with the cNccp.
tion that to commit it. no premcditati0n
IS necessary. Manshughter was defined
us the unlawful taking OF human life,
without malice, either voluntary upon II
sudden heat of passion, or involuntary
in the commission of an Unlawful act.
As has been seen, tins last grade was
fixed upon by the jury, the evidence
go ~ to show about as stated ut the
coma enccmcut of this article
The jury was composed OF men who
were undoubtedly free from prcjudicrs,
cithc: for or against Sutton, and the
Judge was quite emphatic in stating
that the prisoner was being tried not
for any crime comm tied previous to the
present ouc, but lor it alone. lie also
stated, ut the time Of pronouncing sen
tencc, that the Jury had performed its /
duty; that from the law and evidence no |
could reasonably be Inflicted F..
upou the prisoner except Ior mansaugh- |
ter, and that the Prosecuting Attorney /
III ..--.L- .r....I 1. l. .Art,. ~ l. L--. |