Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1880-07-30
IN THE SEC OND DEGREE.
THE CLOSE OF THE SECOND TRIAL OF JOHN t.
PRITCHARD.

PkITCHARD.
At o'clock yesterday morning the jury In
the case of State of Nevada vs.. John T. Prit-
chard, for the murder Of Humphrey Symonds,
brought in a verdict of murder in the Second
degree. The jury were bailoting all night
without rest, until they came to a unanimous
conclusion The day for sentence is fixed for
August 9TH. In the
CHARGE TO THE JURY
The Court instructed them that there was
no evidence in the case to show, that defen-
dant had committed felony on the 21st day
Of July, 1879, before the alleged entry of Sy-
justify the arrest of Pritchard On that ground.
The Court decided that there was not in law
jeopardy of the defendant at the time of
excusing the juror, J. c. Dorsey, because no
evidence on either side had been offered or
heard. The jury was instructed that the plea
of former acquittal was not sustained, and
that their verdict on that plea must be fer the
people and against the defendant. Defend
ant cannot be found guilty Of murder if he
killed deceased while the latter was uplawfully
attempting to arrest defendant and defendant
knew Of the unlawfulness # such attempted
arrest at the time of the killing and took the
life of deceased to prevent such arrest. No
Constable or peace officer can lawfully make
an arrest without warrant, for past "ffense
of lower grade than felony. Disturbing
the peace
Is NOT A FELONY
In our State. If person resisting tress-
pass upon his property makes use of deadly
weapon and with it kills the tresspasser, it is
ordinarily but manslaug liter; but. although
person resisting an illegal arrest, makes use of
a deadly weapon, and with it Stays his adver
sary, the crime is not, because Of the use of
such deadly weapon, raised above manslaugh
ter. Then follows the usual legal definition
of what constitutes murder of the first and
second degrees and manslaughter. police
man has no right to 60 into mans private
residence and attempt te arrest him without
warrant for a misdemeanor committed in his
presence. If an officer having warrant resist
ed after giving proper notice of hisauthcrity and
is slain, the offence is murder. If he arrests
without warrant when the law requires one,
is resisted and slain the offense amounts to no
more than manslaughter. If a mlsdemeanor
is committed in the presence of an officer he
can arrest without warrant. If Symonds |
arrest without a warrant; for that |
purpose entered Pritchards house, and that
before such entry no breach of the peace was
made by defendant in Symonds presence,
such attempted
ARREST WAS UNLAWFUL.
If the aggressor making an unlawful arrest
be killed, it will be manslaughter. If Prit.
hard resisted an unlawful arrest, as above ex-
blamed, and in the resistance killed Symonds,
he defendant can, at most, be found guilty
# manslaughter. You are instructed that
here is no evidence in the case showing that
committed any offence against the
aw, in the presence of Humphrey Symonds,
deceased, the person alleged to have been
Tiled by defendant, before he (Symonds) is
aid to have entered Pritchard's house.
If new trial is not granted by the Distric.
'ourt an appeal will be made to the Supreme
'ourt, on bill of exceptions to the rulings
the District Court. ,