Daily Republican., 1885-12-02
!: 18TH EDITION,
rho BECKER Trsal.

ling Attorney Gorarai Paynter com
mencod the closing argument to the|
jury for the State.
He said that while there was but
little difference between the State and
! the defense ON the question of law in
volved, there was considerable differ
ence In regard TO other matters.
The counsel for the defense have
come and pleaded In the soft times Of
mercy, bnt 1t 10 the duty Of the State to
insist on Justice, stern Justice. Thou
shalt not KILL" and +" Whose sheddeth
mans blood, by man shall his blood be
she'd" In . law given by tho great
| Creator, and In almost As old NJ the
| world itself; 1t Ia the law Of the United
States, and 1t 10 the law OF this State.
When human life IL taken II Is the
Iduty OF the Grand Inquest 10 inquire
how II WAS done, and who done II. and
then make their return TO this Court.
l The case 10 then presented 10 jury OF
OF the Case determine whether or not
| the accused IL guilty. 1t wss not his
duty or his place 70 urge that prisoner
| was guilty VI murder either In the first
or second degree, or even Of maDslaugh-
| Ler, IL he was not, NO more than II WIS
the duty Of the Jury TO return u verdict
lof guilty IL the prisoner WAS innocent
II WAS the duty of the jury to render
a verdict iD accordance with the facts,
aud he contepded that In this case the
facts as presented, by even Rowan. the
principal witness for the defense,
l would justify them In giving verdict
OF murder In the first degree. az In
manner mud form Indicted. He claim
ed that the defense offered was no de-
Tense at all, as the bare threat made by
these men To burn the property, II fn-
tdeed they i'd make It., WAS no defense
lat all for the shooting OF one VI them ,
three quarters ofa hour afterwards.
/ Becker should have waited until he
Twas satisfied that there was an Intention
lon the pact Of these men 70 carry out the
II Threat, and as hs did not, II IN supposed
THAT he committed the act with malice
afore thought, and therefore he IL
tguilty OF murder in the first degree. he
IclAimed that all the violence tended &c
Ishow that Becker firei the gun with the
.ntentiou Of doing just what was done.
1 He commended that no proof had beeD
1presenL ted to chow that either McGinnit
Tor Walker threw any stones, but the
defense had endeavsrec to chow thai
. they did by bringing two women who
testified that they saw McGtpnis' coat
r when IL WAS removed, and SAW a STONE
In tho pocket, which ~as stealthi!y
carried away by his brot. er, AID the,
WANTED 10 know why tho state had no
tplaced this brother on the stand to de
fproveit. He wondered that tney did
not ask him TO serve summons o,
Horace l. .McGinnis in his grave, b
have lion come forth aud testify tina
no stones were thrown.
d The State h&d prod uced tho under
ttaker who attended 10 the boiy OF poo
Horace l. McGinhis after no was muir
ldered, md he said that no did not 80
tany stone In the pocket OF his coa,, ant
, that II 1t bad been there ne would nav
tseen it.
He said the defense had brought /
luuartstte 10 swear that walker wa
I'll unworthy of belief, aud although TIL
20 was sprung on them they had no trou
Ie ole in producing four men equally q
10 good who took the Rtand and swor
% That .hey had known Walker all hi
- life, and that they Fever had heard hi
~ reputation for truth aud yeracity QueG
tioueh.
all Walker said that he and McGinni
III told Becker they would get evsn wit
him, and Rowan adds - that the fact
! OF threats but which we're not proved
But no matter II they did make threat.
~ 1t would not justify the priooner |
IL taking bis gun and killing oHe OF then
m in the fret degree.
lnt He said ttas character WAS o yer
~, good thing to have, but The jury mu
remem ter tb at every man has To mai
la commencement in crime. He al
not care II previous TO this act q
lpTiEonsr had borne a character equal
I Methodist minister or an Ep,BcOp
Il Bishop, or even the Pope Of Rome, u
fact had been proved beyond q dou
that he had entered upon career
criuie by doing an sot that made hi
~ Iguiliy uf murder In the frat degree.
~ Iclosei by begging the jury to reuier
~ verdict in accordance with the Zee
and tho evidence.
The jury were charged by the CHI
tJu'tics, who explained TO them she d
,erent * grses OF murder bs defined
law ,enyi ing they could bring IL a verd
of either degree or Of not guilty Of III
nccoIding ~ they believed the evi dem
He said It Was very erroneous Id
fthat jury In. "a capital case coI
bring Ia any kind OF q verdict th
v tchoose. As this 10 not 60, for according
' ktheir oath tee verdict must bs In accol
I lance with the evidence.
TIE Jury we're thon charged by
Chief Justics a. follows: Tho indit
Iment In this Case charges the prisoa'
Becker, with tho orime OF T. urder OF {
r. tho frat cegrse. As thero arc In ID
I lother kinds Of homicide, IL Il PROF
that l should inform you what they d
and also that though you should not
liable from the testimony TO convict {
prisoner of murder In the first, J
IBhould thu evidence be sufficient
convict him OF murder OF the seco
" degree, you may And him guilty Of su
degree, and II 1t DO not sufficient
that, then. II the killing vas wrorsf
being neither excusable, jnstifAble !
ming accidental, you may find him guilty
Hal granddaughter, simply.
But II is Also my duty to say
- fyou and do 1t now 10 the outset, d
IL is not your province to decide,
- your own nero pleAsure,iwbether ]
will upon. an Indictment of murder
tho first degree and proof Of fsloni
No homicide convict OF one or,
of that crime, or another hut
un Is your duty, upon such an ind
To- mont, to determ iue tho grade of crii
tby the law aud the evidence OF
lac Therefore, whom II Ia said that the 1
I-N In trying an indictment for murder
- the first degree, may convict mum
!, - In the second or OF manslaugh
n the nothing morois meant than that
ward jury, II they find ths specific chs
not supported, may amount 70 tho
w. fense committed, . verdict Of nurde
PIN the second degree or Of msnslsuah
il be respectively ~ the evidence shall dc
and mine the grade.
+2t' The jury's right shall not be exerc
Ill