Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1882-05-27
The Larkin Trial.

terday's issue of the charge and proceed
ings il the Larkin csse:
Now, let us suppose there was such a
demonstration, and the prisoner honestly
apprehended danger, but it was from his
peculiar temperament, from being shy and
t!mld, when a man of ordinary courage
would not have done SO. What allowance
Is to be made? l charge you that in such a
case it is not sufficient that in point of fact
the prisoner entertained apprehensions but
that man of ordinary courage would have
done So undermining that we are to look
at all the circumstances and situations
as they actually existed at the moment and
previous. You must endeavor to put your
selves in his place and try to experience Just
such sensations; and in doing that, you
have also got to surround yourself with
such circumstances as may have impressed
you as having bearing on it. You must
inquire whether George Larkin heard of
any threats, because it might well be con-
sldered that man previously threatened
would be much more quick to fear danger,
than if it were not expected
You are also to consider the fact generally
of difficulties of arrest by officers; also the
officers purpose in acting as he did, wheth-
er George Larkin acted in the circumstances
as they appeared to him from necessity; if
in your judgment he did, you must acquit
him. If not, you must convict him OH one
or the other of the grades of crime. If you
think he formed no deliberats purpose, pre-
meditation or design, before or
after going to the field to serve
the warrant, it is not murder
in the first degree. If you think there was
no purpose in using the pistol, you must
determine whether there was malice. If
you think the killing was the mistake of an
over-fearful or over Jealous man, it ex-
cludes the idea of malice. But if he made
the mistake, and it was mistake not likely
to happen to reasonable man; then it was
voluntary manslaughter. If it was not his
intention to take life, but the killing was acci-
dental, it was only involuntary manslaugh-
ter
Now / have endeavored in all its possible
aspects to lay down the rules of law that
ought to guide you in your conclusions in
this most serious and important investiga-
ton. have referred to the points on pre-
sumption and bnrden of proof. In weigh
ing the testimony it is your duty to endea-
vor to reconcile all of it if you can. You
are aware of the intirmity of human memory,
and the inability to reconcile conflicting
testimony You know how impossible it is
fori the most honest and intelligent wit
nesses, with equal opportunities, to precise
ly agree on any one point Nor does it
necessarily follow that a person can't tell
the truth, because they may not have the
reputation generally for telling the truth
A common liar may sometimes, by acci-
dent, stumble on the truth.
You are not to exclude the evidence of a
witness who has been impeached. 1t Is
dangerous to rest case alone on the ev1-
dence of a discredited witness, but you have
a right to regard it, where corroborated,
and give it some weight.
In case you should return verdict of ac-
quittal, you will simply return
that fact in writing. If a
verdict of guilty of either of the offenses,
it must be specified, and also in writing,
signed by the foreman.
The penalty for murder in the first de-
gree is death; in all the other degrees it is
Imprisonment, as follows: Murder in the
second degree, from 10 to 20 years; vol
untary manslaugter, from to 10 years j;
involuntary manslaughter, from l to 5
years.
Now, neither Judge Key nor myself are
at all clear in the opinion that, in this court,
it is the province of the jury to fix the pun
ishment The State law provides so, but
there is enough of doubt about the matter
to justify us in having it done by the jury
l charge, therefore, that In addition to the
verdict, gin case you should find the
defendant guilty, you shall specify the pun
ishment fixed, within the limits of the
statute.
I,,1+ oIo t.,oa ,,,;
ing upon you the gravity and Importance of
this case. In its every aspect it demands
serious and solemn judgment, and l have
every assurance that it will receive it. You
will now be taken in charge by your officer.
Mr. Gillenwaters, for the State, asked the
Judge to charge that in any killing with
deadly weapons the law presumes malice.
Judge Matthews said he didn't believe it to
be the law, and was not willing to charge it.
The jury were taken in charge by thei1
officer, Deputy Marshal j. L. Lewis, il
being then II o'clock a. m.
At o'clock p. M, court was opened
again, and although the counsel foi
the State, w. P. Gillenwaters,
was not present and couldn't be
found, the jury were called in, but had mo-
agreed upon verdict.
MANsLAUGHTER-FIvR YEARS.
The jury were returned to Their room A
10 o'clock D. m. the court was again re
assembled. Mr.. Gillenwaters was still absen
and the marshal announced that he was ye
unable to find him. Judge Matthews ordered
the jury called and the proceedings to go OF
without him. The jury all answered t.
their names, announced that they ha'
agreed, and their foreman, P. II. Skaggs
Esq, presented the following verdict:
"We, the jury in the case of the State VS.
Geo. T. Larkin, find him guilty of volunta
ry manslaughter, and fix his punishment
five years in the State penitentiary.
P. II. SKAGGs, Foreman"
This May 25th, 1882.
As originally presented, the verdict di'
not contain the word voluntary" befor
manslaughter. The foreman announces
that voluntary" was meant, and at tn
request of counsel for the prisoner, the jur
was polled On the question, the twelve men
as follows: A. G. French, G. Fl. Upton, P. II
Skaggs, James DeArmond, D. M. Caldwell
j. H. Donaldson, James Matthews, G. W
Karns, T. r. Lee, L. Hodge, Alex. Ham
montree, VIM. Patton, answered to the
names that voluntary" was meant.
The jurors were then discharged frol
this case.
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.
Judge George Andrews, of counsel fl
defense, asked leave and entered a motto
for a new trial, and in that connection Ir'
sented an affidavit from H. T. Cooper, Esq
to the effect that Jas. DeArmond, one {
the jurors, after the killing, in long tai
with afhant, argued strongly the guilt {
the defendant, insisting that he ought to b
punished.
He also read an affidavit from the defen
ant, Geo. t. Larkin, setting forth the san