Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1882-10-25

TO believe at the time of the killing,
ana acted upon such belief, that his
life was in danger, or that he was in
danger of great bodily harm from the
deceased, then the killing was justih
able, and the jury should acquit the
defendant.
Third.-Threats of the deceased,
uncommunicated to the defendant,
are nevertheless legal and proper evil
dence for the jury, as showing the real
intent Of the deceased in the conflict,
provided: That it be shown by the
evidence that there was an overt act
of attack by the deceased, and that
the defendant, at the time of the col
lision, was in apparent imminent dan
ger-and if the jury believe, from the
evidence, that the defendant was iii
such imminent danger from the overt
act of deceased, the jury should acquit
the defendant.
Fourth.-If the jury have any rea-
sonable doubt whether the guilt OF
the defendant be satisfactorily pro
ven, or in any material fact tending
to such proof, they will resolve such
doubt in favor of defendant, and ac-
quit him by verdict Of 'not guilty
INSTRUCTIONS on THE PART OF THE
PEOPLE.
1.-Whilc the law recognizes
the right Of the husband to protect
the person Of his wife from assault or
personal injury, even to the taking OF
the life of the assailant, still, before
this plea can be invoked, it is incum-
bent upon the defendant to establish
two precedent facts to the satisfaction
OF the jury, to wit:
Flrst:-That the relation of hus-
band and wife actually existed be-
tween the defendant and the person
against whom the assault was threat
ened or made.
That an assault was actu,
ally being made or attempted, against
the wife Of the defendant at the time
the homicide was committed, and that
in the Judgment of reasonable per-
son the killing of the deceased was
necessary, at the time, to protect the
wife from death or great bodily injury
U.-lf the jury believe from
the evidence, that at the time defend
ant killed deceased, he, the defendant
was actuated BY desire so to do, in
revenge for some real or imagined in
jury the deceased had inflicted upon
the wife of the defendant iii she were
his wifel and not in the necessary de
Tense Of his, the defendants, own per-
son or the person Of his wife (f she
were his wile) then the defendant i.
guilty of murder, and the jury should
SO find.
The third clause was not given
EDITOR TIMES.
: Fourth.-Thrcats afford no excus,
for homicide, unless at the time Of tn
killing an effort was apparently being
], made to carry them into execution.
Fifth.-lf the jury are satisfied tina
3 any witness, land tie defendant i
: this case stands the same as any othe
witness in this respect) has willfull
testified falsely in any material mat
, ter, they are at liberty to reject en-
I t;rely the testimony OF such witness
and should, whenever the evidence o
] such witness is contradicted, requir
: confederation of his testimony.
; Sixth.-.'lf person kill another il
; self-defense, It must appear that tn
danger was so urgent and pressing
!, that in order to save his own life O
prevent bis receiving great bodil
harm, the killing Of the other was alb
: solutely necessary, and it must appea
also that the person killed was tn
:, assailant, or that the slayer had reall
G and in good faith endeavored to de
cline any further struggle before til
fatal blow was given.