The Milan exchange. (Milan, Gibson County, Tenn.) 1874-1978, 1880-01-22
MURDER IN THE NAME OE
THE LAW.
what the Supreme Court has
Declared Upon the Subsect.
Something for Every Policeman
and Constable i'm Tennessee 40
Read and Understand--Om
Must Answer for the Reckiest
Use of the Revolver.

I AIEu hRh
! Read and Uudersta nd--0 Ulcers
Must Answer for the ReckIest
Use of the Revolver.
We have procured from the Su-
preme Court Clerk at Knoxville a
certified copy of an opinion delivered
at the recent session of the Court In
that city, which we publish for the
benefit of officers of the law, that they
may not be as they are, in danger OF
getting into the penitentiary, as the
defendant did, through a mistaken
notion of the law. 1t is the case in
Tennessee that every constable, po-
Iiceman or other officer of the peace
feels himself at perfect liberty to take
the life of fleeing prisoner. There
/ is wide ignorance of the law, and 1t
will save much trouble if this opinion
is carefully read and obeyed. lgno-
rance of the law excuses no man, and
the court did not hesitate to visit its
penalties upon the defendant, although
he thought he had a right to shoot a
! fleeing prisoner. With TINS opinion
before the people, every officer may
know his duty, and may expect to be
held to strict accountability. 1t is
laid down emphatically that, even In
case of felony, shooting will he excus-
ed only when every care has been
taken to avoid it; and, in any crime of
less grade than felony, the officer has
no right to use deadly weapon in
any event. This endangering the
lives of prisoners and innocent bystan-
ders must stop. The press of the
State could lot do greater public
service than to copy the opinion. 1t
is as follows:
Hiram Reneau VS.. the State: The
prisoner appeals from a conviction OF
manslaughter for the killing of Vine
ward Thomas. The facts are that
| Thomas. the deceased, WAS arrested
by the prisoner, who was ii Constable,
under a warrant charging an assault
and battery. Before the Justice OF
the Peace Thomas pleaded guilty and
was adiudged to pay a fine and costs,
and, in default of security, was COM
mitted to jail, and, i'll the execution
of a mittimus issued by the Justice
for that purpose, the prisoner started
with Thomas to the county Jail, ac-
companied by another person as guard.
On the route Thomas started to run
and make his escape. Neither the
prisoner nor his guard pursued. but,
afte.. commanding Thomas three times
to halt, and not being obeyed, the
prisoner fired two shots at Thomas,
one of which took effect, killing him
almost instantly.
The prisoner is shown to be a man
of good character, and he expressed
regre3 at the result, saying that he
did not intend to kill the deceased.
The latter was of bad character for
violence, and had threatened that h'
would not submit to arrest.
The law on this subject, as laid
down by Mr.. Bishop, is, in substance,
that an officer having prisoner in
custody for felony who attempts es-
cape, will he excused for killing him,
if he cannot he otherwise retaken;
but, if he can be otherwise retaken,
in any case, without resort to such
harsh measures, it will be at least
manslaughter to kill him. But, in ca.
ses where the person slain is arrested
or held in custody for misdemeanor,
and he fly or attempt to escape 1t Will
be murder in the officer to kill him,
although he cannot be otherwise over
taken; yet, under some circumstances,
it may be only manslaughter, as if il
appear death was not intended. g
Bishop, Cr. Law, sec. 640-9.)
1t is considered better to allow one
guilty only of a misdemeanor to es
cape altogether to than take his life
And we may add that it may he a
question worthy of consideration
whether the law ought not to be mod
flied in respect to the lower .grade o.
feIonies, especially in view of the large
number of crimes of this character
created by comparatively recent leg
islation, whether as to these even es
cape would not be better than to take
life.
The charge of the judge in the cast
was in accord with the law as above
stated, and the jury have given th'
prisoner the benefit of all doubts ant
E convicted him of the lower grade o
homicide.
1t is argued that the ofense TO
which the deceased was arrested wa
in reality felonious assault, ant
the prisoner had the right to hold hin
r liz custody for this grade of ofense
but it clearly appears that the warran
t under which he was arrested charged
) only all assault and battery, and tn
, Judgment and mittimus of the Justic
] only committed him in default of sc
3 curity for fine and costs for misde
meanor. We see nothing to chang
: the principle in the fact that the de
ceased had been adjudged to pay tn
: fine and costs by the Justice of tn
l Peace as TO the duties of the officer