Daily Los Angeles herald., 1881-11-08
The Hunt Case Affirmed.

The Supreme Court has just af-
hrmed the judgment OF the Supe.
rior Court of this county, rendered
by Judge Sepulveda, in the case Of
the People vs.. Hunt, who was sem
fenced to the State Prison for life
for the murder of Geo. w. Gillis,
at the Monte. One of the points
made before the Supreme Court
was that one of the jurors who
tried the case in the Superior Court
had expressed great pref udice
against the prisoner previous to
the trial, fact unknown to pris-
oner's counsel, and had also in.
dulged In prejudicial remarks con-
corning the prisoner during the
trial. This misconduct, charged
upon the juror by affidavit, he de-
MED by affidavit. But, 1t was con.
tended that, as juror cannot be-
allowed to impeach his own YER
dict, he cannot be heard to defend
oimself. There were also objec.
tiOns taken to portions of Judge
Sepulveda's charge to the Jury.
From the syllabus OF the decis-
ion In the San Francisco EEam-
thor, we extract the following:
An affidavit of juror IN q
criminal trial charged with mis-
conduct is admissible in support of
the verdict.
When in q criminal case the per.
petratiOn of an unlawful act mas
been proven the law presumes il to
have been intended. 1t is never
required of the prosecution to
prove an unlawful intent by posi-.
tive and direct evidence. In many
cases such proof could not be
made, and it ia therefore deemed
sufficient to prove the unlawful
act, and from such proof the law
presumes an unlawful intent.
The Court instructed the jury:
''If the jury believe from the evil
dence that the defendant with
malice aforethought or without
considerable provocation inflicted
q wound upon the deceased, and
that the deceased died from the
wound SO inflicted by defendant,
and that there was no justifica ton
for the infection of said wound,
the defendant must take the whole
consequence of his wrongful act
and the jury find him guilty of
murder"
The objections to the instruction
Sbrhn NorHRt oWroA In. rvirv
instruction No. IA asked by the
prosecution, in that it does not in.
struct the Jury of the degree Of
murder of which, based upon the
evidence, they should dnd the de- |
PENDANT guilty, ii at all; instruct
Ing the jury to find him guilty of |
murder deprives the jury Of that |
discretion and privilege Of deter
mining the grade of the Offense of
which, based upon the evidence,
they are by law invested. And,
further, that said instruction as.
sumes to instruct the jury upon a
question of fact, to wit, that the |
deceased died from the effects Of |
his wounds within O year and q |
day.n Held: The instruction was
not obnoxious to either of the Oh.
jectiOns; and, while by itself it |
might not be precisely correct, in
view OF other instructions proceed.
ing and following it, the jury
could not have been misled by it,
and, therefore, the defendant was
not prejudiced.
The Court further instructed the
jury: "No man can, By his own
lawless acts, create q necessity for
self-defense, and then upon killing |
the person with whom he seeks the |
difficulty interpose the plea of
self.defense; for when person has
by his own lawless acts brought
upon himself the necessity to com
NIT u crime he cannot shield bim-
self by the plea OF necessity from
immunity from punishment for
the crime committed. The plea of |
q ecessity is a shield for those only
who are without fault in OCCASION
ing 1t, and in acting under itn
Held: The instruction was proper |
in view OF the circumstances at |
tending the homicide.
Cases Observation-Disclosures
lIme.-EeOple VS.. 6anc0eZ, "a Cal.,
30, and People VS.. Nichol, 81 Id,
Eli, approved.
Instruction - Evidence - Pre-
sumption Of Intent to Kill.-The |
Court also instructed the jury: |
"Every man is presumed to in
tend what his acts indicate his In
tentions to have been, and if the
defendant fired a loaded pistol at
the deceased and killed him, the
law presumes that the defendant
intended to kill the deceased, aud
unless the defendant can satisfac-
torily show that his intention was
other than his act indicated, the,
law will not hold him guiltlsss."
Held: There was evidence suffi-
cient upon which to predicate the
instruction, and that it was prop.
erly given,