The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1877-06-26

CARRIcK and WENpLE testified to de-
clarations of Gregg as to bis feelings
against the Roes before and after the
diffi riltv *
! ELIJAH 8 SrEpHEN testified as to the
manner in which Gregg wore his hat
when coming to Calais half mile from
town; the rim was turned down, and he
believed the hat shown to be the same
worn by Gregg on that day.
Court then adjourned until 8 o'clock
Friday morning. When Court conven-
ed Friday morning. the counsel for de.
fcndant announced that the defense rested
The State offered in rebutter, the testi1--
mony of f. G Cleveland, T. S. Cleve.
land and Geo. Cline, in support of the
character of Mrs. Schodeld. T. S.
Cleveland supported her character for
truth.
JACOB SoHUMAN was called to testify
to'a conversation with David Long at
the watering though near Roe 8, In which
Long had told him that the arrangement
was to get Gregg to come up to Roe's
on thar Monday in order that they might
give him a threshing. The testimony
was objected to, the objection overruied
and excepted to. He said Long told
him that "when Mr.. Gregg went to the
house they allowed 70 give him maui
ing" s.%r ~.
| Motion to strike out answer oserruled;
and excepted to.
The testimony was here closed, and
Mr.. Foreman opened the argument for
the State; W. f. HUNTER and Hon. L.
DASFoRD delivered arguments on behalf
4 Of the accused and j. P. -SPRreas, Esq;
closed for the State. s.s.,..., !, -, 49,,
: CHARGE TO THE JURY.
\ GENTLEMEN OF THE JuRY: You have
patiently listened to the, testimony pro-
d duced by the State and the accused and
, you have also attentively heard the very
able arguments of counsel. II is now
incumbent upon me 10 instruct you as
to the. law that will govern you In the
!, investigation of the case. The Court
! determines all questions of law, and it is
the sole province of the jury to pass
4 upon the testimony. ~ !.
4 The accused stands charged in the in.
dictment with shooting one William
j Gregg with intent 20 kill. The Court
here read the indictment, and also the
statute under which It was found and
explained to the jury that although the
indictment contained but one count
charging the crime OF shooting with in.
tent to kill, yet If the testimony go war.
ranted, they could find the defendant
| guilty Of assault and battery only.
! Your first inquiry, gentlemen, will be,
! was William Gregg shot in Monroe
County on or about the time slleged in
the indictment, from pistol in the
! hands Of the accused, Jesse Roef Con-
, cerDing this, you will have no difficulty,
for it is admitted by the accused in his
testimony, that the pistol was in his bands
when it went off, and on the day charged.
Your next inquiry viii be-. was the
shooting accidental or was il unlawfully
and 1malicionsly done2 In order to de-
| termine this question, you must look to
! all the. testimony In the case, and from
! that ascertain whether the firing off Of
r the pistol was the result Of accident or
otherwise. y.,ts - xst ,s,,.
y II you find that the pistol yent of By
r accident, then you will inquire whether
the defendaH. was, at the time the pistol
was discharged, engagedin lawful pur-
suit, and II so, that would simply be.
# misadventure and the defendant would
be excussble. In considering this part
of the case, you will consider, not only
II all the testimony given you, but also the
situation Of the parties, the instrument
d used, and the manner the testimony
Il tshows 1t to shaves been used and ifsthe
accused was engaged in lawful pur.
q suit, and the pistol was discharged by
accident, without the fault or gross neg
ligence of the accused, then he would
not be guilty. But if you find that the
defendant was, at the time the pistol went
of, engaged In an unlawful pursuit, and
t the pistol was discharged by accident,
y the defendant would not be excusable,
unless he was justiiable under the law.
RI And in this connection you will con.
slider the testimony further, and IL you
r ind that the discharge Of the pistol Was
8 not the result OF accident, you will next
inquire vas the accused jusii6able2 or in
e other words was the act done in self de-
70 Tense?
Where defendant sets up BY way Of
o defense, that he was justifable in doing
Il what you may find he has done, he must
satisfy you of the fact by preponder-
ance OF the testimony. In the present
n case the accused must satisfy you by q
e preponderance of the testimony, that he
II was justi6able 10 doing what you may
find he has done, and in the manner in
y which it was done, and that whether the
pistol was discharged accidentally or pn-
l. lawfully and maliciously. = I
The law OF self defense, applicable to
e this case, is this:
"a person assaulted may repel force
VI by force; but it does not follow that he
: may without necessity, use deadly
l. weapon for that purpose" unless the life
II of the accused was in danger, or he was
b in danger of great bodily harm.
j "When person in the lawful pursuit
e Of his business, and without blame, is
y violently assaulted BY one who manifest
l ly ndmaliciously intends and endeavors
i to kill him, the person 90 assaulted,
= without re!reating, although it be in his
II power TO do so without increasing his
danger, may kill bis assailant if necessa-
i; ~ to save his own life or prevent enor-
/ nous bodily harm"
vi You win take the law as here given to
el you, and apply it to the testimony in this
,t case. Youihave heard the testimony or
d the State. .as, we'll sssfor the defendant in
regard to the dificulties shown to have
d existed between William Gregg, the
,e prosecuting witness, and Jesse Roe, the
" accused, and you are to consider any
!; threats, il any have been proven, made
}. by William Gregg sgainst the accused.
g II You find discrepancies or contradic-
le tions between the witnesses, it is your
il dutv Il, carefnllv weioh each ;ton of tos