The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1885-05-07


tef aud assess his punishment ~ con.
moment IN tho penltentlafy Tor term
of not less than two nor more Than hye
years.
beyond q reasonable doubt that tho de-
PENDANT IN guilty OF murder or man
slaughter, then II you have a reasonable
DOUBT ~ 10 which OF said oiienses he IL
guilty Of, you will acquit him OF murder
and convict him OF man slaughter.
IL defendant did kill ". E. Hum
phreys, and II when he fred the fatal
shot said Humphreys was making an at
lack upon Joe Polser which reasonably
Indicated to defendant that said Polser
was then In danger OF death or SERIOUS
bodily injury at tho hands OF said Hum
phreys, then such killing would be JUS
tidable homicide, because under such
circumstances defendant or any other
phreys 10 prevent said threatened in
Jury TO Joe Polser; and II you believe
that the killing occurred under these
circumstances You VIII acquit
the defendant, and If you have reason
able doubt as TO whether the killing &C.
CURED under these circumstances, you
will also acquit the defendant. III, upon
the other hand, defendant killed said
Humphreys while he was making an
attack upon Joe Polser, aud n such at
tack was not such rs reasonably indica-
tod 10 the mind of defendant that Polser
was In danger of death, nor or serious
bodil y injury, at the hands OF Hum
phreys, then defendant would have no
right TO kill Humphreys 10 prevent an
assault or battery upon Poisar, which
did not reasonably indicate to defend-
ant that Polser was about to be killed,
nor seriously injured, and II the killing
occurred under these circumstances,
defendant would be guilty OF murder or
manslaughter, as you may hnd under
the instructions herein given, defining
those ofienses.
II defendant did kill Il. Il. Hum
phreys, and II when no killed MIN said
Gumphreys was In tho act OF making
an attack upon defendant, which
reasonably indicated 70 the mind
OF defendant that said Humphreys
was about TO kill defendant or was
asout to inillct upon defendant some So
rious bodily injury, then under such
circumstances defendant would have
the right to kill him and the killing
would be in self defense. And If YOU
believe that said killing occurred under
these circumstances you wild acquit the
defendant, and II you have reasonable
doubt as TO whether the killing occur
red under these circumstances you Will
also acquit defendant.
This instruction is given you subject
to the following qualification: III you
find that the killing did occur under
these last mentioned circumstances,
still II you are satisfied from the EVIL
dence beyond reasonable doubt that
defendant provoked and brought on
said attack and did so for the purpose
OF having an opportunity of Kiliing said
Humphreys,or for the purpose OF inilict-
ing serious bodily injury upon him,
then in such event deiendanps right to
invoke the doctrine of self defense
would be lost to him and the killing
would be murder or manslaughter as
you may find under the instructions
herein given defining those offens es.
Ii you have reasonable doubt as TO
whether Joe Polser killed II. Il. Hum
phries you will acquit the defendant.
To convict the defendant i'll this case
you must be saJisfi I'D from the evidence,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that all OF
the three following propositions are
true:
First-That defendant did kill F. e.
Humphreys.
Second-Thst defendant did not kill
him in defense OF joe Polser, so as to
make it iustifiable homicide.
Tbird-That defendant did not kill
him in selt-defense.
Ii YOU have reasonable doubt as to
the truth of either of said propositions
you will acquit the defendant.
The defendant is presumed innocent
until his guilt is established by legal
and competent evidence, and il, upon
consideration of all the evidence in the
case, you have reasonable doubt OF
the defendants guilt you will find him
not guilty.
District judge.
While the jury was out various were
the conjectures as to what the verdict
would be, and when, at 4:3O O'clock. a
deputy sheriff announced that body, the
interest of the crowd was awakened,
enclosing the bar, eager to hear
the result. Hunnicutt, the ac-
cused, looked as calm and serene
as a May morn as the
indictment upon which was written the
verdict OF the jury, giving him either
liberty, Imprisonment or death, was
passed by the foreman of the Jury to
the clerk, who read: "We, the jury,
find the defendant guilty OF murder IN
for f. NE Iife" 'n These ssa'' words ss0'dds
not affect the prisoner in the least, who,
turning around to an officer, remarked:
"That Is a d---n long time" He was
taken in custody and carried back to
Jail, where he was locked up In the cell
in which convicted prisoners are con-
fined.
The jury, it is conceded, was
composed OF the very best OF men.
There was at one time IL OF the jury in
favor of inflicting capital punishment,
but one OF the number being opposed,
q compromise was made by sending the
accused up for life.
The killing of Humphreys, it will be
grew out OF f. X, Hum
phreys accusing theaHunnicutts of the
theft of steer. George Waller was in
dicted as an accessory to the murder
and Ike Hunnicutt, a brother OF the
man, and John Herndon
grounds that they swore falsely before
the jury ofinquest.
Mr.. Seay will file motion for new
trial. A HERALD reporter called
on him yesterday afternoon and he
expressed himself as surprised at the
but seemed to have no uneasi-
ness about the matter, as he was conf
dent of obtaining new trial. He was
a motion for q new trial.
that the jury convicted Hunnicutt
Of murder in the first do
gree, when the testimony of all
The witnesses, both for the state and de-
PENDANT, showed killing in sudden
difficulty commenced between POlser
and Humphreys, and there was no ex-
press malice shown, and also the admls-
sion of Joe Polser as a witness. Other
will be relied on in the motion
which will be given to the public as soon
rs it is filed.
Corsicana Cuttings.
CoRsIcANA, May 3.-[Special.]- AT a
Of the citizens last night, at
he mayors Office, proposition of Mr..
]. M. Haney, of Russellvllle, Arkansas,
% start cotton mill here, ito cost 100000