Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1881-04-07

saw him leave the road. He did not stand IN the
road. The scuflie started fifteen or twenty
steps in the edge of the old field. was on the
side of road next to his home. We met on the
road face to face. l WAS giving way in the
direction of his home, he following. | was
above him all the time after he struck me. |
knocked off his first lick and lodged his second
one, when he had the knife in his hand. When
we left the Indian behind the log, to go to
town, he was on his back
Redirect-I don't know the distance from
the house to the old field. He called me He'll
ry just about the time he laid his hands OIL my
shoulders.
w. r. TEMPLEToN, srorn.-I went with
Dr. Crawford to this body. While at the
body, the remark, ''Ain't this hell ~ was
made by me.
Cross-erumined. Can't say that Owens made
such remark in DR.. Crawford's presence.
DR.. Crawford knows me, and | know him.
He has known me six or twelve months.
made the remark, "Ain't this hell ~
The defence here closed.
IN REPLY.
DR.. T. A. CRAWFORD, recalled. I do not
remember Templeton making the remark,
"Aint this hell" What testified this morn
ing was Owens own words.
Cross -erdnained.-I do not think TempletOn
The State closed.
The hour now being 4.30 p. NJ, in reply to
the question, counsel Informed the Court that
three arguments would be made for the de-
fence, and one for the State.
l. d. WitherspoOn, Esq, then addressed
the Court and jury in behalf OF the prisoners,
and he was followed by John G. Witherspoon,
Esq.,, in the same behalf and at the concu
sion of his argument, at $40 p. NJ, Court
adjourned until $50 A. NJ. tomorrow.
SATURDAY MORNING.-COurt convened at
93O, and w. B. Wilson, Sen., Esq, addressed
the Court and jury in behalf of the prisoners,
and at the conclusion of his argument, Mr..
Solicitor CASTOR addressed the Court and jury
at II. 30, when his Honor proceeded to instruct
the jury. lie charged substantially as follows: :
This is case that has excited much public
interest, and it becomes your solemn duty, as i'm
partial jurors, to decide as between the guilt of
the prisoners ut the bar and the rights Of the
State. Responsible though your duties may be,
they must be fearlessly met. From the c"npo-
stion of the jury trying this case, feel that you
will not be mised by clamor on the outside
of the courtroom, nor be misdireced in arriving
at an honest conclusion by undue influences pend
ing the progress of the trial. Besides this safe
guard. the prisoners also have the guarantee tiat
should any improper rulings be made bere they
| may be renedied in other Courts. In deternin-
ing this case, it is not material whether the de-
ceased was white man, an Indian, or coored
has any citizen of South Carolina been killed
| by another? Under no circumstances must the
question Of race enter into the case.
| The killing of one person by another is k0bwn
under the general term Of homicide, but this
killing is by the rules of law, divided into great
| many classes, murder and inansaughler
which are denominated unlawful killing; excus
able homicide, done in self defence justitiable
| homicide, which may be committed by all oth-
Ger of the law, as the hanging OF man by vlr
| tue of the sentence of a court; homicide by acci
| dent, when the deed was committed by accident
in the pursuit of lawful business. The three
latter classes are not punishable when 1t is shown
| that they may have been committed under the
circumstances by which they are qualified. If
you find, from the evidence, that this deed was
committed under either one of these three classes,
| your verdict must be for the acquittal OF the
| prisoners.
Murder is the killing of any person with malice
| aforethought. express or implied. Manslaughter
| is divided into many classes and it may be in
sudden heat and passion, and sometimes grows
out of carlessness, and may not be said to have
| been committed in passion; and there are other
cases also, which pass over: The questions here
arise, Was this murder? Is it manslaughter? :?
Was the deed committed in sudden heat of pas
| sion? Or was it committed in self. defence
| To establish case of murder it must be shown
that there was malice; an evil design in general ;
wicked and corrupt motive an intention TO DO
evil, the event of which will prove fatal where
tile killing is Intentional and without iustitiable
cause or excuse. 1t is on account OF Justltiable
cause that sheriff is excusable in executing the
death sentence, although he does it deliberately /;
and again, man may strkea fatal blow deliber-
ately in self defence, but yet be justified In stri
king blow with malice, it is not necessary that
this malice should exist very long time There
is no limit of law as to the length of time the
| malice should exist. 1t must exist sufficiently
long to become el.formed, deliberate purpose
| in the mind, and the law fixes no limit OF time
| beyond this. II he had control of his reason and
formed his purpose within five minutes or even
shorter time, it is just as bad as if he had been
| making up his mind for week. AS to the pre-
sumption of malice, whenever the State has wit
neSses to prove that the accused committed The
| act, the law raises the presumption OF malice !;
but before this presumption is raised, the accused
| is presumed to be innocent But when the State
does prove that he has taken life, then the pre-.
sumption of innocence is removed
| The question of malice becomes the first one for
| you to consider. While the act Of killing in
itself implies malice, yet the jury, when they
| are informed of the circumstances, must be the
| Judges AS to whether there was malice or not To
convict of der, malice is a necessary element,
which must be established by the proof; some
act before hand-as lying in wait; character of
weapon used as shot gun, or axe, or other dead,
ly weapon, or any other circumstances shown to
| the jury showing whether or not the purpose was
self defence merely, or to take human lie lnten
In determining this case there are three or four
points for you to consider and 1 must caution
you that you are to determine the facts. You are
not bound to take the statement of any witness,
but YOU may reject any testimony that you may
discrcdit You alone are to determine the weight
and credbility to be given to witnesses. Until
within the last few years, in the criminal pro-
ceedings in this State, the mouths OF prisoners
were closed. The State made prt'aa facte case,
which could be removed only by other witnesses
than the defendants themselves ; but the tenden-
cy of modern times is to widen the scope OF ex-
animation in all cases, and allow the parties &C
cused to come on the stand and testify. You are
to weigh the testimony, take into consideration
the bearing of the witness on the stand, and all
other surroundings. With this the Court has
nothing to do, nor can I give you any assistance
in reference to it, If I had formed any concu-
sions the facts, should be far from letting the
Jury know what they were.
In looking for the elements of malice in this
case, you have the right to go back to what occur
red at Sally Hines house; to inquire whether or
not the prisoners formed purpose at this house
to commit this act, or to engage in any unlawful
act towards the deceased, Austin Harris; and II
you conclude that the purpose to kill or injure
the deceased was formed at this house, before the
parties met in the old field, then they are respon
sible for the consequences which followed. If
you conclude that their statement is true one
and no such design was formed at Sally Hines
house, then you will enquire whether such de-
sign was formed after the parties met in the old
field And if then no such design had been
formed, was the act done in sudden heat and pas
sion, aroused after the parties met and the conflict
began in a mutual combat? Or, was the act done
in sef-defence? AS to the question OF malice, 1t
ia not material AS to how recent the malicious IN
tent may have been formed. But before you can
convict either Of the prisoners of murder, you
must find that the deliberate intent to kill or do
bodily harm had been formed. If you find that
Duffy struck the blow with malice and that Ow-
ems was present aiding him, then Owens, too,. is
equally guilty but if You find that the blow was
struck with malice, and Owens was not aiding
and abettng then he cannot be found guilty
nnd if Nnn find that thew were both aiding and