The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1878-11-23

A BESwooD correspondent OF the
Moundsvile Reporter pays a high and de.
served tribute to the memory OF the late
W. L. Linebcrger, Of BenwOod He was
Almost excellent and exemplary man-one
OF the oldest and most faithful Nailers at
the Benwood Mill, and always highly es-
4eemed by the company for his fairness
and conscicntiousness in all matters Of diff
ference between them and any OF their
employees. He was jealous member OF
the Methodist church at that place, and at
one time was able to do the society great
service by inducing the Benwood Com
pany to remit considerable amount ow-
ing them by the society. He was simple
hearted and yet very persuasive man
where his feelings and sense OF right were
enlisted. In his death the whole Ben
wood community have suffered the loss OF
n most cstimable and reliable citizen.
The Principle OF Law In the Tannehill
Murder Case.
The Wellsbnrg Herald arraigns the prin-
Ciplc of law that Judge Hart, Of Washing
ION, Pa, laid down in the Tannehill MUIR
der case Just concluded at that place. The
case was this: A man named VIM. McNutt
was trespasser in the orchard OF Tame
hill, and the latter, lying in wait for q tres
passer, having been several times annoyed
in the same way, fired and killed MCNutt,
although not intending, as he says, to hit
him.
For this killing Tannehill was convicted
OF voluntary manslaughter," and SEN
fenced TO pay the costs OF prosecution,
and to pay also fine Of 500, and be i'm
prisoned two years in the pcnitentiary.
Judge Hart laid down the principle OF
law governing such case OF killing as
follows:
"In the State VS.. Patterson, case re.
Gently decided in the Supreme Court Of
Vermont, by Barrett J. quoting from Arch
G. 22j. II is clear that il one man de-
liberately kills another to prevent u mere
trespass, which could or could not other
wise be prevented, he is guilty OF murder.
II indeed, he had ut first used moderate
force and this had been returned with
such violence that his own life was en-
dangered, and then he had killed him from
necessity, it would have been excusable
homicide, not because he could take life 10 sdrt
Ills properly, but he might take the life Of tht
a&Mildnt 10 sare his O,rn." So, again, tho
idea that is embodied in the expression
that mans house is his castleis not that il
is his property, and that Us such, he has
right to defend and protect it by
Otherand more eXtrame means than he
might lawfully use to defend and pro-
tcct his shop, his office or his barn.
The sense in which the house has pecu-
liar immunity is that 1t is sacred for the
protection OF himself and ofhis family. In
the case before the court it was claimed
that there had been an assault by the de-
ceased upon the prisoners house, and in
reference to what Judge Bennett says, in
case the purpose OF the assailant was to
takcliie or to inflict great bodily harm and
the object OF his attack upon the house
was to get access to the inmates occupying
The same, for such purpose the same means
might lawfully DO used to prevent him
from breaking in, Us might be used to pre-
vent him from making the harmful assault
Ipon the person, in case the parties were
met facc to face in any other place. In
either case the point Of justification is that
such use OF fatal means were necessary in
order to the rightful, effectual protection o
the respondent, or his family from the threat
ened or impending peril"
The Wellsburg Herald does not quote the
above passagcfrom the Judges charge, but
gives, nevertheless, q fair epitome of the
principle embodied in 1t, viz: that
although man may lawfully take
life in Case OF burglary OF his dwelling OF
in defence OF his own life, or Of the lives OIL
his family, yet he cannot lawfully do so in
defence Of hisproperty by night or day, nc
matter where or what, unless he believes
his own life is endangered and kills or
wounds in self defence"
Having thus stated the principle laid
down by the Judge, the Herald proceeds to
observe that
"Strictly construed, according TO this
charge, Waterman in bank would not
be justified in shooting bank robberi in
the act OF breaking open the bank safe in
his charge, II tho burglars are considerate
enough not to so corner him that he can
not escape with his life. 1.-The has an op.
portunity 10 run away he may do so, or II
he prefers to allow himself to BIO peace
ably gagged and tied rather than risk taking
the life OF ono or more OF the robbers with
the revolver that his employers have put
in his hands, he has the option and will
very probably take 1t. A banking house
is not necessarily or usually dwelling
and the contents OF an iron sale are not
any less or more property than are the
contents Of peach orchard. In the es-
sentials Of property they are identical"
Weincline to the opinion thatt Herald
has applied too severely tho principle Of
law laid down by the Judge. The case Of
bank burglary is to be regarded in a very
different light from tesspass into O
peach orchard. To tresspass on orchard
groundsis, upon its face, not an aggrayat-
ed crime. It's manifestly merely an in
tent to commit petty larceny. Custom
constructs law, and in some parts of the
country it scarcely amounts to petty
larceny TO go upon the orchard grounds
Oft farmer for the purpose Of getting few
peaches or apples. This is particularly
The case in day time. After night such an
intrusion assumes changed status, but is
still far from being grieyous wrong.
On the other hand, to break into bank
lisa great crime-so great that 1t Is punish.
able by q long term Of years in the peni.
tentiary. To prevent such burglary it is
the custom Of banks to place Waterman
Understandings, and toarm him. This fact
makes the bank the dwelling place OF that
occupant. Hehas right to infer that the
men who break into tho bank intend to
do him bodily harm in order either