Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-12-22
SENSATIONAL SUIT.
Conclusion Of the Trial Of Edwards for
killing Young Roberts at Kerr
vile. in This County.
The Result Of a Difficulty Caused by
the Betrayal of Beautiful
Young Woman.
The Jury, Charged by Judge Greer at
Considerable Length, Retire With
All the Evidence.


by the attorneys on either side The pros
ecution opened with a three-hour speech
by MIR. ). ID. Weakley. Gen. Luke Wright
for the defense, followed with four-hour
| address. Col. CAN'T, also for the defense,
spoke nearly as long, and was followed by
the encouragement. The trial has attract
ed crowds daily. All the evidence against
Roberts has already been given in the Ap-
PEAL. The cause of the difficulty-the Sc
| duction OF Miss Ligon-was not brought
out on the trial, Judge Greer deciding that
it was incompetent. Argument was fin
ished at late hour last night, and the
| Court delivered an able and exhaustive
| charge.
! After the judge had explained the law
| generally of murder and manslaughter. OF
self-defense, reasonable doubt and weigh
ing evidence, he said: 1t follows from
these general instructions OF the Court
that If you believe from the evidence, be-
yond a reasonable doubt, that in the coun-
ty OF Shelby, and before the finding of
| this Indictment, the defendant and Roberts
had been quarreling on the day of Rob
erts's death III the town OF Kerrville; that
| both had been armed at one such meeting
that the defendant lived about one mile
from kerrville; that Roberts lived on the
same road about POO or 800 wards from
said town; that after the meeting in which
both are armed that defendant went to his
home; that about three or four hours after
this return defendant came back to Kerr
vile; that he then carried shotgun that
he returned to the said town with the
| formed design of killing Roberts. or that
after his return to said town he deliber-
ately formed such design; that in accord
ance with such design the defendant met
Roberts; that Roberts at such time was
making no effort to kill or do great bodily
harm TO defendant; that defendant had no
reasonable ground to believe himself
at that particular time in danger of
death or great bodily harm at the hands
OF Roberts, that the defendant then shot
said Roberts with said gun; that the re-
suit of said shooting was the death of
Roberts in few moments thereafter, then
you will convict the defendant of murder
in the first degree Or, il YOU believe
from the evidence, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that the defendant returned to
| the town of kerrville with no premedi-
tated design to kill Roberts, but that he
had armed himself and returned TO the
town willing and ready TO renew their
| quarrel ii they met, and you then believe
they did meet; that Edwards shot Roberts
whilst IN no danger from him at that par
ticular time, or that he had no reasonable
| ground to believe himself in danger from
/
shot was fired by Edwards with the pre-
meditated design of killing Roberts; that
this occurred in Shelby county, before the
indictment, still this would be murder in
the first degree. If, however, you do not
believe the defendant had a premeditated
design to kill Roberts at the time it is said
he killed him, and you he believe from
the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt,
that Roberts and Edwards had a quarrel
on this day; that they met for
the third time late in the afternoon
that at the time OF this meeting Edwards
| shot and killed Roberts, when he had no
reasonable ground to believe himself in
danger OF death or great bodily harm from
| Roberts, and that he was not in such dan
ger; that the shooting by Edwards was
done IN malice, as already explained 10
you; that this occurred in Shelby county,
before the finding of this indictment. then
you will convict of murder in the second
degree. If, however, you believe the de-
fendant had neither a premeditated de-
sign to Kill Roberts, nor malice toward him,
and yet you believe from the evidence, be-
yond reasonable doubt, that the defend
ant IN Shelby county, before this indict-
ment, in sudden anger brought about by
a reasonable provocation given him by
Roberts, such anger being of that character
as to cause defendant to lose that control
over himself possessed by an -ordin-
ary prudent man, that he then
shot and killed Roberts while in
no danger OF death or great bodily harm
from Roberts at the particular time of their
then meeting, or that he had no reason.
able ground to believe himself in such
danger, then you will convict the defend
ant OF voluntary manslaughter. II, on the
other hand, you believe from the evidence
that on several occasions prior to the day
of Roberts's killing he had threatened tht
life OF Edwards, that Edwards knew OF this
that on this particular day Roberts had re
peated these threats and made several at.
tacks on Edwards; that Roberts had armed
himself, saying he would kill Edwards
that these threats and this condition of be
, ing armed existed all of that day; tha
when the fatal meeting took place, anC
Immediately preceding the fatal shot, Rob
, erts had pistol in his right hand that h
made an effort to present thia pistol q
Edwards, or that he advanced TO NEE
Edwards with said pistol in his hand, o
his hand in his pocket where pistol was
i'll threatening manner as if about to at
tack him; or that he created this belief il
Edwardss mind, and that Edwards hat
reasonable grounds to believe that he wa.
in danger OF being shot at that time b,
Roberts, and that Edwards, acting undel
an honest and well-iqunded belief OF sucI
danger, hres and kills Eoherts, then yoor
, would aoquit him. The threats made by
Roberts, his being armed, the previous
difficulties of Edwards and Roberts, the
character of Edwards for peace and qui
etude, are all circumstances for the jury to
consider as to whether Edwards was in
danger of being shot by Roberts at the
time 1t is said he fired, or for the purpose
of considering whether Edwards had a rea-
sonable ground to believe himself in such
danger at the time OF said alleged shooting.
You can, under the duty voq have sworn
to discharge, when you are passing on
this defendants guilt or innocence, have
neither, sympathy nor prejudice. 1t is
your solemn duty, after impartially weigh
ing all the evidence in the case, after con-
sidering the arguments which have been
made, after carefully applying the law to
the facts, to return such verdict into
court as truth demands and justice dc