Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1884-01-30


80 doing He who uses upon the body
of another at some vital part-with a
manifest intention to use it upon him
"a deadly weapon, such as knife, an
axe, gun or pistol, must in the ab-
sence of qualifying facts be presumed
to know that lis blow or shot is likely
to kill, and knowing this, must be pre-
sumed to intend the death, which is the
probable and ordinary consequence Of
such an act He who 80 uses deadly
weapon, no sufficient cause of legal prov
ocation being shown, must be presum-
ed to do it wiekedly and from a bad
heart, and therefore he who takes the
life of another with deadly weapon
and with manifest design thus to use
it upon him, with sufficient time to de-
liberate and fully to form the conscious
purpose of killing and without any
sufficient reason or cause of extenua-
tion, is guilty of murder of the first de-
gree Manslaughter is the unlawful
killing of another without malice ex-
pressed or implied, and may be volun-
tary when done in sudden heat of
passion or involuntary, when in the
commission of some illegal act. Vol
untary manslaughter very nearly ap-
proaches murder The distinction is
this Manslaughter is never attended
by legal malice or depravity of heart.
But being often a wilful act, it is neces-
sary that the circumstances should take
away every evidence of cool depravity
of heart or wanton cruelty.
To reduce an intentional blow, stroke
or woundng resulting in death, to vol
untary manslaughter, there must be
sufficient cause Of provocation and a
state of rage or passion, without time
to cool, placing the prisoner beyond
the control of his reason and suddenly
impelling him to the deed. If any of
these be wanting, if there be provoca-
tion without passion, or passion with
out sufficient legal provocation, or
there be time to cool, and the reason
has resumed it's sway, the killing will
| be murder.
IN REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE.
Having thus stated the law in re-
gard to the crime, we come to consider
| the law in regard to the evidence, 1t
may be stated generally that all homi-
eide is presumed to be malicious; that
is, murder of some degree, until the
contrary appears in evidence. And
the burden of reducing the crime to
manslaughter, where it is proved the
prisoner did the killing, lies upon him.
He must show the circumstances of
| alleviation or excuse upon which he
relies to reduce his offense from MUIR
der to milder form of homicide, un-
less the facts already in evidence show
it. But though homicide without cir
cumstances of alleviation or excuse is
presumed to be murder, the presump-
tion rises no higher than the second
degree, and itdevolves upon the Com
monwealth to show by evidence that
it is murder of the first degree. The
Commonwealth must therefore satisfy
the jury of these facts and circum.
stances which indicate the deliberate
intention to kill and the cool depravity
of heart and conscious purpose which
constitute the crime of murder of the
first degree.
Adverting in the light Of these prin-
ciples of law to the evidence
for the Common wealth, what
what was the offense which, apart from
his alleged legal responsibility, the
prisoner committed?
The testimony shows beyond ques-
tion that James Mutt, the prisoner at
the bar, standing in the front part of
an unfinished building upon a crowded
street in Uniontown, Fayette county,
not far from I in the evening, seeing
Dukes passing along the street, drew
revolver and fred Dukes, apparent
ly realizing his danger, took 10 fight,
and was pursued by the prisoner, who
fred as be followed him, shooting in
all 1--WE shots (any one of three OF
which are alleged to have been neces-
sarly mortaD, until Dukes fell dying
upon the floor of the postoflce.
None of these facts have been gain
said or denied by the defense. They
are undoubtedly substantially true.
You believe, no doubt, that Dukes
| thus came to his death bv the hands
of the prisoner Of what offense does
the law say he is guilty, apart from
the defense set up and so strenuously
urged upon you by counsel for the
prisoner? From the facts Creating
him as a responsible being) the indica-
tions are, and it seems to me the
necessary conclusion is, that be was
guilty of the highest grade OF murder.
He attacked man quietly passing
! along the street, who does not seem
even to have known he was there till
fired upon with most deadly weapon.
There was no conflict, no controversy,
no resistance on the part of Dukes, but
! on the contrary he fled for his life.
The prisoner followed shooting into
his back shot after shot, till be fell
gasping in death. Here was the use
of deadly weapon, in manner like
| ly to kill, not only once but several
| times. There was no legal provoca-
tion to reduce the killing to mauslaugh-
ter. The whole act seems-In the alb
sence of other circumstances not thus
far brought to your notice by my sug-
gestions-a wilful, deliberate and pre-
meditated killing, and therefore mur-
der of the first degree. If the case
only stopped here there could, under
the law, be no es ape for the prisoner.
But the defendants counsel, while not
perhaps expressly admitting this con-
clusion, declare and urge upcn you
that even admitting all this to be true,
and assuming the killing was done
under such circumstances az otherwise
would make it criminal, the defendant
is not guilty and should not be con-
victed of any criminal offense, because
he was legally irresponsible at the
tim. he did the killing by reason of
darannad Or nnSnnnd mind which the