Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1882-08-23
The Garland Murder Trial.


charge to the jury in the Garland
murder case this morning. The
court instructed the jnry 1st, that if
tEey believed, from the evidence,
that the accused went to the place of
meeting with a wilful, deliberate
and premeditated intention to kill
the deceased, and that in pursuance
Of such intention to kill the de~
ceased, accused is guilty of murder
in the first degree: End, every homi-
C de is presumed by law to be muir
der in the secoqd degree,
and, in order to elevate the
offence TO murder in the first de-
gree, the burden of proof is on the
Commonwealth, and in order to Re
duce it to manslaughter the burden
OF proof is ON the prisoner; Sd,
that if they believed, from the evi-
dence. that the accused wrote on
the fifth of July, 1882, the letter
couched in the following langr 1ge:
s. JOSEPH Addison You said in your
note to me that you endorsed eve y
thing Miss Hatcaell said to me in
her letter. [ will attend to you in
due season, you Internal low-lived,
living SC undrel.' Which letter
was sent to aud rece we'd
by the deceased on or before the
9th of July, and that the accused, in
pursuance Of any purpose indicated
in the said letter, armed himself
with a deadly weapon and went in
company with two other persons, on
the 18Th of July, one Of whom was
likewise armed with deadly
weapon, to the place Of the killing,
with view to meet the deceased,
and failing to meet the deceased On
that occasion, left word for the de
ceased that the gentleman would be
to see him the next morning, and if
the jury believe from the evidence
that the accused on the next morn
ing, July 14th, armed himself and
oneJ. A Roach, with deadly weapons,
and in company with John A. Roach
and one VIM. Boswell, who was also
armed with deadly weapon, went
to the place of the killing, and
III pursuance of any purpose indi-
Gated in said letter, sent for the de-
ceased, who came to the place of the
killing to meet him, and If the jury
further believe from the evidence
trat upon the meeting OF the deceas
ed with the accdsed the accused
killed the deceased with a deadly
weapon with which he had previou ly
armed himself without any Lawful
procation then received, the jury
mus find the accused guilty of mur-
der in the second degree; 4 b, ths
if the jury believes from the evideno e
that the accused yOlunsariSr went TO
the vicinity Of the deceased in pur~
suance of a notification to that eff CT
previously communicated on behalf
Of the deceased, to deceased, armed
with deadly weapon with the pme
pose of having an atIray or difficulty,
if the deceased did not withdraw or
apologize for the insult previously
given the accused by the deceased,
and ulon meeting the deceased
killed INN, they must find the ac~
cused guilty of murder in the sec
ond degrees. the said accused can
not plead self-d defence for killing un-
der such circumstances 5th, that if
the jury believe, from the evidence,
that the prisoner came to the p ace
of combat and invited or induced
or had the deceased brought out to
meet him for the purpose of en-
gaging with him n an encounter
with firearms, the result of
which encounter was the death
of the deceased from pistol
shot wound, inflicted by the prison
er, such killing is murder, and it
matters not which party to the CONS
bat actually, in point of time, fired
the first shot; 9th, that words of IN
suit or reproach, if acted upon by
one not in heat of passion or after
sufficient time for cooling has
elapsed, are no excuse or iustifca-
ton for the homicide, and do not
serve to reduce the homicide from
murder to manslaughter. The court
further instructs the jury that
all malicious killing is murder,
and that in case of homicide,
malice is evidenced by the deliberate
selection and use Of a deadly weapon;
by preconcerted hostile meeting,
notified or threatened by the slayer.
or by his acting on a previous quar-
rel or grudge, and that no provocao
tlon, or words, or gesture, however
abusive, threatening, or insulting,
can reduce killing to man
slaughter. To all OF the above in,
structions, counsel for the defense
took exceptions. The conrt further
instructed the jury in substance, as
follows: 8th. That the law pres
sumes every man innocent until
proved guilty; 9Jh. That the burden
Of proof is on the Commonwealth
10th, that the prisoner must have
the benefit of every reasonable
doubt; 18th, 18th and 18th, that
any person attacked with deadly
weapon by another or threatened
with a deadly attack through no
wrongful act of his own, may de-
lend himself to the extent of taking
life, if necessary, and such killing is
justifable homicide; 14th, a man
may repel force by force in defence
ot his person or property, bat
The force, or violence, used
must not be excessive, but only
'omeIent to repel the attack and free
ue party attacked from imminent
anger; 10Th, that if the jury shall
nave any rational doubt as to any
Important necessary to convict the
ccused of any offence whatever,
they are bound TO give the accused