Arizona citizen., 1877-04-21
The Lockhart Shooting Case.

Justices court. before J. NeugasS, Jus tice of the Peace. Territory of Arizona vs.
 Frank P. Agnew, George Roder and Chas Smith. Preliminary examination upon the charge or an asSanlt with intent to murder James Wall LOckhart
 The case was submitted without argu- ment and the court decided as follows:
 Before arriving at conclusion in this matter, l thoroughly examined the law in reference to the particular facts in this case. have already decided that the de- fendants had a right to arrest Lockhart, since felony or supposed felony had been committed by him in their presence. It is well settled principle Of the law, that when private person or persons ar rest party under the circumstances pre- Scribed by statute, the arrest is legal and as soon as the arrest is made, the law clothes the private person or persons with all the immunitieS and privileges allowed d regular officer of the law. Therefore. all acts done by the defendants toward Lock hart while he was under arrest, must be construed as acts done by a duly author ized officer.
 Now. it appears plainly from the evil dence that whilst Lockhart was a prisoner in the stage room at McKInzie's Station, he made numerous attempts 10 get hold of pistol or gun, with the idea Of effect ing either his escape or commit some oth- CT offence. IL is also in evidence, that the defendants struck him during The strug- gle, with their guns. Now, did the defen. dants strike Locknart for the purpose Of murdering him or merely for the purpose Of ofpreventing him from getting hold orany arms or preventing his escape or from committing any unlawful act? They cer- tainly, as officers or the law, had the per feet right to prevent his escape or 10 defeat
 his purpose Of obtaining arms, and to use all force necessary 10 prevent the consum-
 nation Of Lockhart's intentions. Under the circumstances, therefore, the defen- dantS were justified in striking Lockhart ! if they thought it was necessary. But did they do it with the intention Of murdeung him? To constitute every crime, two in- | f
 and the intent These are two essential elements and where either one is lacking ! there can be no crime. The intent must also be criminal.
 These are fundamental principles of the ! law and must be followed.
 l With the W hole evidence before me, and considering the defendants were acting with all the powers Of a civil officer al the ! time the blows were struck, faIl to find the criminal intent. upon the part Of de- l fendants to, aj the time, murder LOckhart. Now, there being no sufficient cause To believe The defendants guilty of the offence Of an assault wi.h intent to commit
 murder" I therefore order the said defen- dants discharged.
 Territory Of Arizona vs. Fred. Baker, E.
 H. C..eeyer anu E. F. Bailey. PrelImin- ary examination against B. II. Cheeyer and Fred. Baker of the charge or murder.
 E. J. Bailey not being in custody, examin- alton against him upon the same charge postponed until the proper arrest is made.
 By consent Of counsel for the prosecu- ton and defendants, the whole matter was
 submitted To the court, upon the deposi- tlons taken at the Coroner's inquest at Camp Grant.
 The court decided that the true view of the law, is doubtless that every man k re- sponsible cnmiually for whatever wrong flows directly from his corrupt intentions,
 but no man intending wrong IS responsi-
 ble for an independent act or wrong, com
 nitted by another. 1.-the wrong done, was fresh and independent wrong, springing wholly from tue mlud of the doer, the other IS not criminal therein. Now, it ap- pears clearly from the evidence, that the defendants Cheever and Baker, cannot be made accessories to the homicide commit- ted by Bailey on the road going to Grant, as il was done under different circum- stances and therefore an independent wrong.
 There being no sufficient cause 10 believe the defendants guilty Of the charge of mur- der, therefore order them discharged.