The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1880-06-01

King. Jr the party on trial before you,
was indicted by the Grand Jury for mur-
der in the FIRST degree in killing David
Trembly in this county about the 23d
day of September, 1879
There are two counts in the indict-
ment: one charging that the murder was
committed with 8 pistol, and the other
charging that 1t was committed with a
gun.
Edward Conley is charged in the same
indictment with aiding, abetting, assist
ing and procuring the said Peter King,
Jr., to commit the said murder. These
parties were entitled to separate trials,
and King alone is on trial before you.
You can make no finding for or against
Conley. The indictment in the first
count charged Peter King, Jr., with the
murder OF David Trembly by means of
a gun-The jury may find the accused
guilty under either count and not guilty
under either
The charge made against Peter King.
Jr., in this indictment is charge of
murder in the 6rst degree. The Court
will say to you, gentlemen, that under
this indictment you may find the accused
party guilty of murder in the first de-
gree, or you may fnd him not guilty of
murder In the first degree, but guilty Of
murder in the second degree, or you
may find him not guilty OF murder either
in the fret or second degree, but guilty
of manslaughter, or you may find him
not guilty Of either crime s,sf
The statute provides that whoever,
purposely, and Of deliberate and premed-
itated malice kills another, Is guilty sof
murder in the first degree. That who.
ever purposely and maliciouslva akiAs ans
other, is guilty b: murder in the second.
degree. and that whoever unlawtully kills
another, except as provided in the former
sections, is guilty OF manslaug
All persons indicted. for crime are
presumed to be innocent until proven
to be guilty, and il is incumbent on the
State to satisfy your minds beyond q
reasonable doubt of the truth OF every
material allegation necessary to consti-
,ute one OF the grades of crime named.
That is, murder in the first degree, mur'
der in the second degree or manslaugh-
ter.
Your 6rst inquiry in this case, gentle
men, will be, Is David Trembly dead ?
or this you will have no difficulty in
finding that he is dead.
Your next inquiry will be. Was his
death caused by pistol or gun shot wound
fired by some person other than him
selff
Your next inquiry will be, Was the
shot fired by the accused party, Peter
King. Jr., in the County Of Monroe and
State Of Ohio3 II you find that 1t was
not. then your finding will ce that the
accused is not guilty. If you find that
il was Hred by the accused then the pre-.
sumption would be that the accused
would be guilty Of murder in the second
degree; and TO bring the grade OF crime
above murder In the second degree, it
will be incumbent on the State to pro.
duce evidence establishing certain facts
beyond reasonable doubt hereafter sta-
ted, and in order to reduce the crime to
manslaughter it is incumbent on the &C.
cused TO produce testimony as hereafter
stated.
In order to Hnd the accused guilty of
murder in the first degree, yon must find
from the testimony that satisfies your
minds beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused party, Peter King, Jr., pur-
posely and OF deliberate and premedita-
ted malice, killed David Tremblv, either
by pistol or gunshot wound. To con-
stitute deliberate and premeditated malice
the Intention to do the act must have
been deliberated upon, and the design or
determination to do the act mustHhaye
been formed before the act was done
This supposes that the accused by rehec-
ton understood what he was about 10
do, and intended to do harm In order
TO hnd the accused guilty OF murder in
the second degree you must lind from
the evidence that satisfies you beyond q
reasonable doubt that the accused pur-
posely and maliciously committed the
act with which be stands charged . and
in order to find the accused guilty OF
manslaughter you must find that the ac-
cused unlawfully did the act. 8
In this case, Gentlemen OF the Jury,
the State has introduced testimony tend
ing to prove certain confessions claimed
by the State TO have been made by Peter
King, Jr., since be was arrested and con-
fined to the. Jail OF the county. This
testimony comes before you through
witnesses. who claim to have had con-
versations with the accused in the coun.
ty Jail. This testimony as to confessions
was permitted to go to the jury and it is
for the jury to pass upon the confessions
and give them such weight as in the
opinion OF the jury they are entitled.
The Court will say to you, gentlemen,
as the law that will govern you, that
confessions clone not made in open
Court, or on examination before q mag
istrate, but to an individual or individu-
ais, uncorroborated bv circumstances,
will not justify conviction in capital
case. In cases of this kind great care
should he exercised by the jury in pass
ing upon confessions detailed by witness
es claiming to give conversations with
the accused.
In passing upon testimony Of this kind
the Court will say to you, gentlemen, that
the testimony Of witness consisting OF
the narration OF the conversations OF q
party is always TO be received with giea'
caution.
And in passing upon the testimony as
to confessions claimed by the State to
have been made by the accused, yon will
enquire whether the accused was insane
or whether, If be done the act, be was 81
the time the act was done capable OIL
judging whether the act was right OF
wrong. Did be know at the time it Mat
an offense against the laws of God and
man? III the accused did not know tha!
the act was wrong, and did not know
that it was an offense against the laws o
God and man, then he would not bt
guilty.
And in further passing on the testimo
ny, If you find that the accused was no
at the time insane, If he did know righ
from wrong, you will then pass upon thi
strength or weakness of his mind ,the cir