The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1882-08-24

the fact that he thought the night botweel
Addison and Garland was fair. one an'
that Garland ought not TO be tried for muI
der; but as he was engaged to Miss Add
10 that family prevented him iron
putting himself before the cour
to-day. He was asked by the cor
| IL he wished to explain or modify IN any
way the testimony given by him Wednesday
He said he did not. Counsel for defense
asked that the witness be allowed to MAKE
his explanation to the jury. privately, bu
the court would not permit it.
Counsel for the defense asked that Ely
Balm be recalled as they wished to prove
by him that Addison made certain threats
against Garland ON the morning Of the
shooting. Counsel for prosecution OBJ
iected, and a protracted discussion ensued
The court finally said it would reject the
testimony. Defense reserved their point
pending submission by counsel of requests
for instructions to jury. Court at 12;oo p
m. took recess.
LHUNENBURG, August 23.-The court deliv.
cred its charge to the jury in the Garland
case this morning. The court instructed
the jury first, that if they believed from the
evidence that the accused went to the place
ofmeeting with the wilful, deliberate and
premediated intention to kill deceased, and
IN pursuance of such intention to kill de-
ceased, the accused is guilty of murder in
the first degree.
Second. Every homicide is presumed by
law'to be murder in the second degree, and
in order to elevate oiIenses to murder in
the first degree, the burden of proof is on
the commonwealth, and in order to reduce
it to manslaughte ther, burden of proof is
on the prisoner.
Third. That if they believe from the
evidence that the accused wrote on the 9th
of July, 1882, a letter couched in the follow
ing language "Jos. Addison, you said in
your note to me that you. endorsed every
thing Miss Hatchett said to me i'll her
letter. | will attend to you in due season,
you infenal, low lived, lying scoundrel,n u
which letter was sent to and received by
the deceased on or before the 9th of July,
and that the accused in pursu-
ance of any purpose Indicated in
said letter, armed hmelf with a deadly
weapon, and in company with two
other persons on the 18th of July, one of
weapon, went to the place of the killing
with the view of killing the deceased, and
failing to meet the deceased on that morn
ing, left word for the deceased that some
gentlemen would be to see him next morn
ing; and if the jury believe from the evil
dence that the accused on the next morn
ing, July 18th, armed himself and one John
hOaCn, Will ueduiy medpon, auu AZ Voh'
pany with John Roach and one William
Boswell, who was also armed with
deadly weapon, went to the place
of the killing and in pursuance
of any purpose indicated in said letter,
sent for the deceased, who came to the place
of the killing to meet him, and if the jury
further believed that upon the meeting Of
the deceased with the accused, accused
killed the deceased with the deadly weapon
:4l~ ,aI1 h,I nd inn
self without any lawful proyocation then
received the jury must find the accused
guilty of murder in the second degree.
Fourth. That if the jury believe from
the evidence that the accused voluntarily
went to the vicinity of deceased
in pursuance of notification to
that effect, previously communicated
on behalf of accused to deceased, armed
with o deadly weapon for the purpose of
did not withdraw or apologize for an insult
previously given accused by deceased, and
on meeting deceased killed him, they must
find the accused guilty of murder in the
second degree, since the accused cannot
plead self-defense for killing under such cir
cumstances.
Fifth. That if the jury believe from the
evidence that the prisoner came. to the
place Of combat and invited or had deceased
brought out to meet him for the purpose of
engaging with him in an encounter with fire.
arms, the result of which encounter was the
death of said deceased from pistol-shOt
wound inflicted by the prisoner, such kill
ing is murder, and it matters not which
party to combat actually in point of time
fired the first shot.
Sixth. That words. of insult on their
approach by one not in the heat of passion,
or after a sufficient time for cooling his
temper had elapsed, are no excuse or justi-
tcation for homicide and do not serve TO re-
duce homicide from murder to manslaugh-
ter.
Seventh, The court further instructs the
Jury that all malicious killing is murder,
and that in case of homicide malice is evil
dcnced by the deliberate selection ahd use
of a deadly weapon, by preconcerted hos
tile meeting, notified or threatened by the
slayer or by his acting on a previous quar-
rel or grudge, and that no provocation or
words or gesture, however abusive, threat
ening or insulting, can reduce killing TO
manslaughter.
To all the above instructions the counsel
for the defense took exceptions. The court
further instructed the jury in substance as
follows:
Eighth. That the law presumes every
man innocent till proven guilty.
Ninth. That the burden OF proofis-on the
commonwealth.
Tenth. That the prisoner must have the
benefit ofevery reasonable doubt.
Eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth. That
person attacked with deadly weapons by
another, or threatened with deadly attack,
through no wrongful act of his own, may
defend himself 10 the extent Of taking life
if necessary, and such killing is justifiable
homicide.
Fourteenth. A man may repel force. by
force in defense Of his person or property, but
force or violence used must not be ex-
cessiye, but only sufficient to repel an at
tack and free the party attacked from
imminent danger.
Fifteenth. That ifthe jury shall have
any rational doubt as to any important
fact necessary to convict the accused Of any
oifense whatever, they are bound TO give
the accuse the benefit Of that doubt.
Sixteenth. If upon the whole evidence
in the case there be any rational hypoth-
esis consistent with the conclusion that
homicide was excusable or iustifable, the
the accused cannot be convicted.