The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-10-18
THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENCE.

THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENCE.
ATTORNEY GENERAL STOCKTON CLOSES THE
PROSECUTION OF JOSEPH A. BLAIR FOR KILL
ING HIS coAcHMAN-HIs REVIEW OF THE
LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE Casa JURYMAN SICK,
AND THE JUDGES CHARGE POSTPONED UNTIL
TO-DAY.
The Newark Court House yesterday crowded
with people anxious to hear the summing up OF the
prosecution. This important duty devolved on At
torney General stockton, and the able exposition
which he made of the law of self-defcnce III the
course of his address to the Court and jury
throws much light a subject which
there exists considerable misrepresentation in
the public mind. The law is much more
tender OF human life than is generally believed.
After commenting the sadness of his duty he
proceeded to review the evidence aud the ploadings
of the defence. lie said THE defence have laid
down certain propositions law. 1t is true man
may put revolver in his pocket under certain cir
cumstances and may keep servant in his place.
But If q man. being abused by servant gets re-
volver and shows it to the servant. and. when the
servant runs. follows and shoots him in the back,
and then. when he is on his face. shoots him again.
the shooting is murder. It has been said. gentle
mon. that when Catholic has performed penance
and received absoluton he feels free to do or say
anything Mr. Parker. "Oh, no: oh. no.') Well,
their proposition to this effect, that after
has received absouton he is less careful to tell the
truth. II ever dying statement was TO be believed
it was his.
DISPUTED POINTS IN THE CASE.
There seem to be but two disputed points in
be done" and whether he took the
volver from Armstrong; hand. Deciding these
points in favor OF the defendant. still contend that
out OF his own words and the words of his counsel
he is shown to be guilty Of murder in the first de-
his coachman. to his house and gets q revolver
he sends his wife and children into the house, and
Ophelia is to be believed. said 1T must be done;"
he shows Armstrong the revolver and repeats his
demands; Armstrong goes up stairs and two shots
heard. The Attorney General here dwelt upon
Bairs testimony concerning what occurred in the
room. and urged that with the halter around
his neck, Blair had had every inducement to manu-
facture testimony The shots and the flight Of Ross
der Quoting the law, the Attorney General commended
that the six propositions OF the defence are not law
Armstrong was not trespasser, but was doing his
masters work. While Blair had right to have
Armstrong removed from the premises he had no
provoke him. 1t Is not safe, he said, to allow men
to go about armed. for the moment they get re-
and the courts in this State havo recently been
rigorous in dealing with offences growing out of the
THE Law OF sELFpEFKNcE.
The Attorney General then submitted the follow
ing points illustrating the law applicable to the
case under consideration. He said:-ln this case.
nrst there is evidence Of previous intent and prep
aration; second, tho shot deliberately fred;
third the weapon deadly one. Words Of abuse.
ntimidating actions. however provocative OF
anger, not adequate provocation to free
the party killing from the guilt OF murder when
tho evidence shows intent ON his part to kill.
An assault, though illegal. will not reduce the crime
OF the party killing the person assaulting him to
granddaughter when the revenge IL dtsproportionate
and barbarous. Where express malice is proved, al
though the law might apart from evidence OF malice
have imputed the oct to unadvised passion on ac-
count OF recent provocation yet it will be murder.
The deceased. It was urged. was not at the time
trespasser, but, II he was no case can be found in
the books to warrant the position that "mercly be-
cause Is y trespasser upon my land may kill
him;" on the contrary. the law upon this point il
we'll settled that when the trespass barely against
the property of another, not his dwelling house.
it is not provocation sufficient to warrant the
owner in using deadly weapon and II he do. and
with II kill the trespasser, this will be murder. be-
cause 1t is act Of violence beyond the degree Of
provocation. So he had no right to procure n
weapon to be used IN case OF necessity and then pro-
woke tho necessity. No man is justified excus-