Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-08-04
and to make him apologize to the woman he had

and TO make him apologize to the woman he had
wronged."
And in answer to question by counsel as 70 why
he had purchased the pistol the second time, he
says " / armed myself because l knew that he
might offer me violence, and l wanted to protect
myself Here the defendant seems to have been
capable OF reasoning and all his acts seem 10 show
more the intention OF one who after mature deb.
Grafton had determined to take the life of his victim
Ut, as defendant afiirms, he went 10 compel the
man he believed has wronged him to ask the pardon
OF the woman he wronged and leave the country.
II that be the line Of reason and will ACCEPT 1t as
Such, am forced to the conclusion that the defend
ant was In such condition Of mind that the law will
hold MN responsible for his acts. For he says: /"
dld not Intend to shoot him when went there"
He evidently had considered the result OF such an
act and the disgrace it would entail upon his family
scHRoDERs MANNER AND ACTS NOT IRA
TIoNAL.
His manner in the room of Lefevre-all his acts
are not irrational or incompatible with sanity He
did not do most men would. But can the man.
er Of the man be held 10 be only thai of an insane
imaginary, to avenge, the plea of insanity might be
successfully urged. But the defendant was laboring
under the believe that he had been most cruelty
wronged, and hence a motive-reyenge il woull
seem-prompted the act For he says, I'm moment
of just indignation and rage drew my pistol and
shot him again until saw him fall In a moment
was myself again." 1t seemed to my mind impos-
sible that unsettled reason can SO suddenly simply
by the discharge of pistol be again restored and
the patient be himself again. am compelled to
hold the defendant comm tied the crime in sane
condition, and is responsible for his acts.
ExCUsABLE OR JUsrIPIABLE HOMICIDE.
This defense is sought to based upon thefurther
ground Of excusable homicide OF jusifable homicioe
The killing being admitted. 1t is claimed there was
such provocation offered and such wrong suffered
by the defendant to warrant the defendant In tax
ing human life to avenge the wrong. This argument
was urged with 80 much force by counsel that am
lIa.f 80
tending to show that the deceased had wronged the
defendant is that given by the defendant The de-
fendant says the deceased admitted that he seduced
defendants wife. Upon this evidence I am asked
10 discharge the defendant upon the ground that the
wrong suffered justifes the crime and upon the
further ground that jury trial will not convict
What trial jury will or will not do it is not my
province to divine.
THE COURTS DUTY.
1t is my duty to enforce the law as l find it. Sym
pathy for the dead and sentiment for the living
must both be repressed. The law must be exc.
cuted, and impartial justice administered II de-
ceased had crisiinally known defendants wife,
would that justify the taking of his lifeG The
question is determined by our Code. Penal
Code, Section 1876, reads as follows:
Section 1876. Homicide is excusable in the fol-
lowing cases:
81. When committed by accident and misfor-
tune in lawfully correcting child or servant or in
doing any other lawful act by lawful means with
usual and ordinary caution, and without any un.
lawful intent.
"2. When committed by accident and mistor.
tune in the heat of passion upon any sudden and
sufficient provocation, or upon sudden combat
when no undue advantage is taken nor any danger
Gus weapon is used, and when the killing is not
done in cruel, unusual manner
And Section 1877 is follows:
"Section 1877. Homicide is also justifabe when
committed by any person in either Of the following
cases:
al. When resisting any attempt 10 murder any
faln 4
bodily injury upon any person..
"2. When commit in defense of habitation,
property or person against who manifestly in
tends or endeavors, by violence surprise, 10
nit felony, or against one who manfestly intends
and endeayors in violent, riotous or tumultuous
manner, TO enter the habtation Of another for the
purpose of offering violence to any person there
in; or
s. When committed in the lawful defense of such
person, or Of wife, husband, parent, child master
mistress or servant OF such person, when there is
reasonable ground to apprehend design to commit
felony or to d some great bodily injury and immi
nent danger of such design being accomplished but
such person, or the person in whose behalf the de-
Tense was made, il he was the assailant or engaged
in mortal combat. must really and in good faith have
eneay ored to decline any further struggle before the
homicide was committed /; or when necessarily COM
mitted in attempting, by lawful ways and means to
apprehend any person for any felony committed or
in lawfully suppressng any riot, or in lawfully keep
ing and preserving the peace"
THESE ARE THE ENUMERATED INSTANCES
Where one may kin another and be justified In do.
ing So The question is, can any case stand on the
same footing Of reason and justice these enumer
ated cases do, unless defense of some so,t-the pre-
yention of some impending and pressing wrong
enters as an element therein? BY reference to the
sections OF the Penal Code given it will be seen that
each Of them contemplated defense against iume-
date and pressing danger. 1t is defense of self it
is defense of habitation, property person; it is
defense against one who manifestly intends or en-
hu
or either it is defense against mob violently and
riotously intending and endeayoring to enter ones
mouse To assault or wrong some person therein it
is defense against real, imminent impending dan
ger; it is defense when there is reasonable ground
to apprehend design to commit felony or to do
some great bodily injury upon wife, husband,
parent, chiid master, mistress or servant of such
person, when there is imminent danger of such de-
sign being accomplished. nsere fear of anv Of
fense to prevent which the killing was done shall
not justify it. The circumstances must be such as
to excite reasonable fears in rational mind and the
person killing must act under the influence Of such
fears and
NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF REVENGE
Not only must it be IN defense, but it must be alb
soutely necessary to prevent this attack or inva-
sion; and even in sefdefense the strongest of all
defense the danger must be so urgent and pressing
at the time OF the killing, that, in order to save
o es own life the killing absolutely necessary
So that law broadly separates the act of delib
erately seeking another and Staying him for past
wrongs, however heinous they may be, from the act
OF Staying another to prevent bis doing a present
wrong Immediately impending. Whatever is done
to revenge the past, is not Unsuitable. When done
under pressing necessity to defend life or limb or
wife child, habitation or property against fel-
onous attack or either, it is justifable. The same
doctrine is laid down in Wheaton's Criminal Law,
section 459, and Bishops Criminal Law, volume 2,
sections 70S, III, 713.
THE DEFENDANT NOT ADMISSIBLE TO BAIL.
The only remanng question for me to consider
is, Is the offense of that character which is
placed in the discretion of the Court to admit the
defendant to bail?
Judge Yule quoted the Penal Code on the
question, and saying that the proof of the
guilt of the defendant was evident, and there
fore he has no power to admit the defendant
to bail.
The defendant is held to appear before the
Superior Court of Alameda without bail.
SCHROEDER TAKEN TO JAIL.
Schroderwas taken in charge by the Sheriff
and removed to the County Jail.