The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1881-03-03

: l1zlnl1 = sssss
ert done though II + pnt rocrseary or -eruf~.s
: t-.f sIr''r- 5l' IA L-Ee bsl1 -o- sy c1- & 3ar
: me- N9f'Fe, TIM =r3r=saz thst r}- I- .a-5s~s Ir
rTEr'Eai7, -'re Is 'r tu5H-3,r g-s seJ ..s. arnr
-. - -a.7a v's- owes .rFfl 10 ia aE1 :4t.E.t.d
t0 "a - s order - -. s7I -.;-tov James f5rsdy If
YIN a73 {rrT. r- s-' 7r- ,,evars 3l1.5, 71b
r7t Peter Eo~s@r She G3Issas-r- rr} -stE, i.-ril-
0' ta ifr"=s "a R-f,.ca e XII the 3e-na-s3 srl1
5eitHa-e'n7 ma ~rras ,erzs s-aar il rrlre .rer7-
SrH-a7'cs ard eeurrfs ucfrp ,srrg,i. +, Is inmate
ri.l h1r -hnf The lin. may haze baar, between The
purpose ard It's cvccati0u.
Deliberate a"d Ir"E4"ditat.5 malice Is when ;ke
act tone ha.her oeoy r"f"eta.i npo9 before It IS
done aHG IT, In this In" evidence shows tho per-
was excited and e,I eiett time Irad elapsed for it
10 cool and suhsie. sttl iti@a question nj fact for
yoE to find whsher the set Of dr berate aud pre-
meditated malice. or resulted from heated temper.
Murder in the sscnna degree charged tn this in
iictment. IS the Intentional malicious ard unlawful.
killing OF one rersor by another rithnHt feLbcraTon
and reedI'ation. Bnt malice and intention kill
necessary elements In the crime of murder in the
second degree well in the first degree under the
Statute of this States hut delberatiou and prenedta
tinn not necessary ingredients constitute
der in tha second degree.
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing reason-
able being of another without malice, either
sudden quarrel, unntentonally while the slayer is
In the commission of unlawful act; or it may
be committed with malice unintentiaily, while the
slayer in the commission of unlawful act and
the highest Court of the State has established the rule
that. although malice is not necessary to constitute
the crime ofmansiaughter. yet the presence of the
aggravating ingredient. malice, does not render the
act any the less the crime of manslaughter.
Now. every killing by person of another is not
necessarily criminal. The life of human being may
be taken by another such circumstances that the
killing would be justifable in selfdefepse, the
slayer, at the time the deed is done, may be
insane, his mind unhinged and reason
dethroned. and in such be entirely incapable of
committing crime. Counsel for defendant claim there
is evidence tending to show self-defense, and in
sanity arising from hurt the head, and intoxi-
cation.
Before the defense of self-defense be success
fully set up 1t must appear from the evidence, that
defendant did not seek the difficulty and bring the
aray that resulted in the death of the deceased and
the burhen of proof in this defense is thrown the
defendant. (Here 1t was explained what burthen of
proof meaas.)
In this connection it is claimed that decease
violent and dangerous man. This permitted defense
to prove first his violent character and then his
utation. If it appears that the defendant vic
enty assaulted and at the time in danger of life
or losing limb, was in danger of receiving real
bodily harm, or reasonable man he had reasona-
BILE grounds to believe he was in imminent danger of
losing life limb. of receiving great bodily HARM
then, and in such and not otherwise, he could
resist force with force and If necessary to save him.
self, take the life of his assailant.
I have said, in substance. that insanity, when
shown to exist when act is DONE is good defense
Insanity produced Immediately by delirium trcmens
affects the responsibility in the same way as insanity
produced by any other cause. Insanity Immediately
produced by intoxication is for crime and
does not destroy responsibility, where the person.
when and responsible makes himself voluntari
ly Intoxicated.
While intoxication of itselfis defense to the
fact guilt yet where the question of intent or pre-
meditation is concerned evidence of it is material for
the purpose of guiding to determine the precise
degree the crime of which the defendant is giity
that is. If you find the other averments true that
gur.s at your hands III. consideration of the ques
tisn of irent and premedifated malice TO determine
whether the defendant is guilty charged in the in
icmcnt of either all of the crimes charged there
IN 1t becomes necessary for you to carefully consider
All tn" evidence. the circumstances and facts proven
The statements of the witnesses that c1ia; t. have
HeaT witnesses % the transactions the character
oi the Instrument weapon with which the wound
inflicted; the part Of the person Of the deceased
aPcn hich the wound inflicted; the tendency
and natural result of the of such weapon on such
mart the body he deceased destroy life. You
ri also lnok to the declarations and ststement- OF
the defendant, If any, before at a time of and after
he transaction.
Then you will look at all the evidence offered tend
ing to prove self-dafcnse. insanity, intoxieation
frenzy, ifan5 such is offered, and what motive if
The defendant has taken the witness stand. Ypu
have heard his statemeHt-give it such credit and
weight you think it deserves after sidering his
interest
These matters of fact matters wholly for your
considerations those that necessary to make out
the crime well as the facts claimed to be proven
thar defensive in their character, including the
question of intoxicaion and its degree and effect If
any. upon the defendant guided as you must be in
deliberations by the rules of law touching all
these facts that have given you.
Then. gentlemen of the jury, what say you? In the
light all the evidence in the Is the defendant
gully, not guilty7 Ii guilty, of what crimeP or
murder In the lst degree murder in the I'd degree.
anslaughter? IThe forms of the verdiet were
here explained and the jury directed to retire
and remain in their until midnight, and If they
failed to by that tme to retire to the hotef un-
der the care of an ofhcer.)
The jury came In at three O'Clock on Saturday and
returned verdict of guilty of murder in the second
degree Mr. Powell, the Prosecuting Attorney, asked
that the jnry be poed, when the name of each juror
was called by the clerk, and the juror was asked II
this his verdict, and his reply In the affirm
atiye.
And the.trial of the Becker was ended.
Isaac T. Monahsn, Guardian, VS.. Mary J. McGhee.
Anna Efsnawge so of age, and the owner OF
es land, which she sold to Mrs. McGhee,
wife of Isaac McGhee. The petitioner states that
Mrs. Eisnawgle was not capable of making deed on
account of and mental inrmty and that the con-
sderation paid for the land, s275 inadequte and
asking that the deed be set aside, &c. Monahan was
appointed guardian during the life time of Mrs. Els
nawge, and administrator after her death. =.
Deed set aside.
State of Ohio VS.. VIM. Radcliff Indictment for as
sault and threatening Plea not guilty Tried by the
Court. Defendant not able to employ counsel, and
DR.. Laird appointed by the Court. Defendant found
guilty, and sent to Jail days. (This Is refer
red to in another place.)
State of Onio Sarah Woods. Indictment for
keeping room, &c. Plea guilty, and fine $50 and
costs, and bond ordered Defendant is old woman,
and holds forth at Byer's Station, or Midtown"
State of Ohio VS.. Benjamin Wartenbe. Assault and
battery. Plea guilty, and fined s25 and costs. (This
is the Radclif case, referred to elsewhere.)
James Whit Rebecca Whit, et al. Sale in par
ttion. Sale confirmed and ordered.
John L. Ramsey. Guardian, vs. Joseph P. Lively.
Order for sale of mortgaged premises Amount found
due, $73S,
State of Ohio Robert Plummer. ARRAY. Plea
guilty, and fined SIS and costs.
state of Ohio Griffin Chavous. Indictment for
carrying concealed weapons. Plea not guilty. Tried
by the Court. The defendant Is a cnlored man. The
frst witness young crlored woman named JOS
ephine Perkins. Defendant had been boarding with
Bill Watson. and dispute about the board bill.
This at Watsons house. Watson drew knife.
and Chavors reached up to cigar box and got his
revolver, and threatened to shoot.
ELL .Fatron took the witness stand. Bill is quite
black. is wPIl krnwu here and Is quite character.
e testified that Chavou4 took the revolver .ut Of hi
hp pocket and not from the cigar box. He said that
Chavous, with prosne oatbs said he wor'i -'ut
seven hnles through hip,. tWatsoa., Nitpess told
hin, - shoot aud lie d-d
ronrrd man named !Io"sier te-tia:d that l'e say
c1avous Lri1g his hard from hs hip iynct +,
~ttk the revolver III hia hand. lie might have iake,,
III revolver from the box, but witness thought ne
took s. from hi pocket---.
n feudant X the witness stant and detailed the
trnur'e about the board hill. In tI quarrel Watson
ordered Of the hou5e, and got m, and Bill
lrinred MP drew his knife. oUen1d it, aud said he
'Voail cut my d-d CUTS out. th"n reached 10 the
a1anteI and took my revolver aud told him ii he
at me with the knife would shoot him.