The New York herald., 1879-10-19
IN SUSPENSE.

THE BLAIE-ARMsTRoNG HOMICIDE CASE GIVEN
TO THE JURY-JUDGE DEpUE's CHARGE
LoopHoLEs THROUGH WHICH VERDICT OF
AcQUITTAL MAY BE REACHED.
Public interest in the trial OF Joseph A. Blair for
the murder of his coachman. John Armstrong. cul-
minated yesterday. The Newark court room was
actually besieged at early hour by persons ahx-
ious TO hear Judge Depue's charge to the jury. II
generally felt that the fate of the prisoner de-
pended tho nature of the instructions which the
Court would give to the iurynen. and Judse Depues
known severity in the construction OF the law caused
considerable apprehension to exist in the minds OF
persons interested in the defence. As Judge Depue
read his charge defendants counsel frightened Tor
it seemed to them. to Others in the audience. that
the qualifications of the law points insisted on by
the prosecution offered the jnrymen loophoie
through which they could escape from convicting
the prisoner.
JUDGE pEPUE's CHARGE.
The following the presiding magistrates adj
dress TO the jury
My duty will DO best performed by furnishing you
with few plain, practical rules extracted from the
laws and to be adopted by you for your guidance IN
dIsposing OF this most important case. do not
propose to review the evidence. Every portion OF
the testimony which the diligence OF tho distin-
guished counsel has enabled them lay before the
has been careealiy discussed by counsel in all it's
bearings upon the issues in the case. and you are
the judges OF the credit to be given to the testi-
mony
That the deceased cane to his death from the
effects OF pistol shot wounds Unlisted by the prs-
oner IL not disputed. The only debatnble questions
are whether the accused incurred any criminal re-
sponsibility from his act and IL so of what grade
or crime he should be convicted.
The defendant was the owner and in possession of
the premises which the homicide occurred. The
deceased was u servant in his employ. He was dis
charged by the defendant and IL became his duty to
quit the premises. II alter reasonable time he re-
fused to 90 he became trespasser, and might be
removed from the premises by force using no more
force than was reasonable and necessary. But
that will not justify the defendant A man can
not aeiena MS properly o.mer .Man ms tn dWehs ing
use Of deadly weapon. The defendant Bon
the evening In question went to his barn
deceased on the preceding day His inquiries or
complaints were responded to in abusive and pro-
ceased made threats to kill the defendant and his
wife On these facts standing alone. the defendant
cannot sustain his justification. No provocation or
abuse however great, nor threats Of personal vio-
lence. will justify q homicide.
sELF-DEFENcE.
Self-defence Is OF the natural rights of any in
dividual. II the defendant has satisfied you by the
evidence that he lawfully entered upon the defence
OF his person and pursued his defence in o lawful
manner. his justification will be complete and he
. will DO entitled to an acquittal. In every
in which selfdetence Is relied on justi-
fcation. two questions arise. First. whether the
accused lawfully engaged in the controversy out OF
which the homicide grew; and second. whether his
conduct At the time the fatal wound was given was
lawful. The homicide occurred ut the defendants
barn. He went there to inquire Of or complain Of
the conduct OF the deceased. His expostulatons
casioned violent threatening and abusive language
the part of the deceased. Alter the dispute had
proceeded some time the defendant left the barn.
obtaining his pistol returned to the barn armed
with Q pistol. Tho defendant demanded the sur
render OF the keys. and the deceased up stairs
followed by the defendant. and was shot by him at
the door OF. or within. the upper room.
On these facts the State contends that the accused
rrtated by the violent language OF the deceased and
py his refusal to surrender the keys. armed himself
for the purpose of coercing compliance with his de-
mands II you reach that conclusion from the evil
dence the accused is without Justification or excuse
The defendant contends that he did not return to
the burn armed with pistol with the intent to en-
i'll an afray with the deceased or to coerce him
into compliance with his demands by intimidation:
He insists that fearing Tor the safety OF himself and
his family while the deceased remained on his
premises. be returned to the barn expecting to in
duce the deceased to surrender the Keys and leave
the premises. and that he armed himself solely
with view OF protecting himself from the violence
OF the deceased in case his defence became necessary
II you adopt that Wow OF the evidence the accused
was not in fnnlt in providing himself with deadly
weapon for his detence lie was under no obliga-
ton TO abandon the protection OF MS wife and
children or the control OK ms property because an
JUSTIFICATION OF HOMICIDE.
1t Is undoubtedly Fundamental rule OF law that
o homicide is Justifiable when done necessarily in
defence OF ones person. for the preservation OF his
life or protecti0n from great bodily injury. An
accused is justified In usirg force to defend his
pcrson only when force IL necessary to NC
complish that end. II the apprehendcd injury
could be otherwise avoided lie is bound to avoid tho
danger without resorting to violence To JUSTIFY
the taxing OF lfe ny way OF selt-deence the danger
must be immediate and must be actual. or cise APP
pretended on reasonable grounds. OF which the jury
is to judge The accused cannot make his own tudg-
ment OF the necessity OF Staying the deceased III
der to defend himself Justification or his act 1t IL
not enough that the accused believed himself to be IN
danger unless the facts and were such
that jury can cay that he had reasonable grounds
for his belief