The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1883-01-30

was not required to retreat but had the
right to stand his ground and TO use
even dangerous weapon in his own
defense.
1t is for you to determine from the
testimony whether an assault or attack
was made upon defendant; the nature OF
that attack; whether defendant was in
imminent danger or not, and as TO
whether he ought, under the circumstan-
ces. and conl1, without danger, have re-
treated before infictng the blow with
the knife: CT whether tho attack upon
! him threatened his life or to do him
great DO iilv inj1ry, in which case. and
il snch was the design, defendant hal
right 70 stand and was not required to
retreat. In deciding upon the justifca-
ton, you will ascertain what informa-
ton defendant had as to his danger, and
how the facts appeared to him at the
time The rule on that subject is:
Homicide is jlstifable on the ground
OF self defense where the slayer in the
careful and proper use of his faculties, in
qood faith believes, anil has reasonable
ground to believe, that he is in iuni
aent danger Of death or great bodily
harm, and that his only means Of escape
from such danger will he by taking the
lifo Of his assailant, although in fect be
is mistaken as to the existence or i'm nj
nencc Of the danger"
Defendant must have believed he was
in danger, and he must have had what
appeared to him, in gnoi faith, to be
reasonable ground for his fear AMI be-
lief He is responsible Tor the ordinsry
use OF his faculties. II through his own
culpable negligence, ne failed to make
ordinary and proper use OF his faculties,
and as consequence used the knife
without reasonable ground existing or
appearing at the time for Its use, he is
not excusable. n be had no reasonable
ground tor his belief, but from his own
culpsble negligence, in not using his
senses, in fact believed he was in dan
ger and therefore inflicted the wound
that caused death. he would be guilty
OF an unlawful homicide, bus his crime
in such case would not be murder, but
would be manslaughter.
There is very little controversy at this
day as to the general rules Of law gov
ernng the right Of self defense, the diff
ficulty usually is in the application Of
the rules to the particular case, and in
determining as to the facts
The jury xlone can decide the facts -
l shall not attempt to repeat the tcsti.
monv, and shall only make such refer.
ence to some OF its features as may be
necessary to show the application Of the
rules OF law which are to guide you. II
, doing this | do not intend to intimate
e any opinion as 10 questions OF lact, anC
- il | should appear TO you to intimate al
! opinion as to the facts YOU will disre
, gard it. While all questions OF fact arr
thus exclusively for yoar decision, thos
Of law are for the court. Counsel ~
o both sides have read to you from th
r hooks and have commented on the Law
q which they believe governs the case -
4 This hiss been a convenient and prope
Q manner for the presentation Of thei
: views; but, in your deliberations, it i
your duty to be guiiel bV the rules o
\ law given you by the court.
Testimony has been adnitte1 in thi
4 case as to the statements or dying dec
! larations, as they are called, of Jscol
: Z,ssiger. Statements Of the party in
$ iured. not on oath, are admitted as tie.
tinony only IN cases Of homicide, and
u in such cases, they are to be admitted
e and are to be considered, with caution
= Jacob Zessiger, at the time he mad
:, the statements testified to, was not IN
+ der oath and was not cross examined
IT he was still snhject to the infirmlties
n anil NAV have been subject to the pas
i, sions, OF other men. The statement
are admitted and are only to be consid
II cred in cases where death was impend
l. ing when they were made AMI where th
d person making them bad no hope Of re
IT covery. To be considered, they mus
Ie have been made in the known preseDe
vt OF death. The statements admitted
s. this case you will consider as the test
W monv OF a witness, and, like the test
mony Of any other witness, give the
\, such credit and weight as you think the
.. ought 10 have under all the circumstar
Of ces.
You will consi Ter the testimony ar
he ascertain from it whether defendant Wi
~ in imminent danger OF his life or {
IN great bodily harm, or, whether he,
81 the proper use Of his faculties, hal re-
ut sonable ground to believe, and did
ny good faith believe, that be was in sui
to ,ianger, and that the means he u.s.
e. we're necessary for his own defense.
ar There is testimony that deceased W
p armed with an iron poker, of-size al
sc weight sufficient, in the hands OF vi
lr- lent maH, to destroy life or do enc
40 nous bodily harm, and there is testlm
be ny tending to prove that he vas ang
and violent and that he threatened .
lal serGans with that weapon. There
re some difference between the witness
as to whether Zesslger struck at defer
ch ant with the poker, at the time the kn
nd was used, or whether he had thro'
II down the poker and was making an
in tack with bis own force without tt
We weapon 1t is for you to decide whei
lse er deceased attempted or intended
nd use that weapon upon defendant,
lie whether defendant had reasonal
is ground to believe and did 5elieve Il
w. be designed so to use it.
'e In determining as to defendants
la lief and a. the reasonable grounds
'e' belief, you will take into considerati
the testimony oE the subject Of
ly, character Of deceased as quarrelsol
he or dangerous man, and as to his pre-
lie Gus threats-whether they had be
On communicated 10 defendant or not
ct. well rs the ,estinony IS TO The ueapon W
lot which he was arme.l and as to his &C
we dnct, language and condition Of mind
,s- the time; and also the testimony as
the position defendant AMI deceased {
ay cupied in relation to each other at
tly time and the conduct of defendant
rec Threats proved may he looked to so
as as they throw light on either the desig
he or fears Of the parties.
eat A son NAV defend his father und
IKE the same circums, snces and to the sal
zen extent that he may righIfully defe