The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-05-02

The implied malice OF defendant, and
murder in the second ue
gree, as that otfense Ia herein defined;
then you will find the defendant guilty
of murder OF the second dhgree, and as
sess his punishment at confinement in
the penitentiary for not less than five
years.
II you are satisfied, from the evidence, |
beyond reasonable doubt, that the de- |
fendant Is guilty of murder; then il you |
have reasonsonable doubt as to |
whether he Is guilty of murder of the |
first degree, or Of murder OF the second |
degree, you will acquit him Of murder
of the first degree, and convict him Of
murder of the second degree.
If you are satisfied, from the evidence,
beyond reasonable doubt, that the de-
fendant, at any time within three years
Dallas county, Texas, did kill II. E.
Humphreys by shooting him, and that
such killing was done by defendant
while he was under the imme-
date influence of a sudden passion
arising from an adequate cause,
and constituted man-slaughter, as that
otfense is herein defined, then you will
find the defendant guilty of man-slaugh-
ter and assess his punishment at con-
finement in the penitentiary for term
OF not less than two nor more than five
years.
II you are satisfied from the evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt that the de-
PENDANT Ia guilty of murder or man
slaughter, chen ifyou have reasonable
doubt as to which Of said otfenses ho is
guilty Of, you will acquit him of murder
and convict him of man slaughter.
II defendant did kill +. u. Hum
phreys, and il when he fred the fatal
shot said Humphreys was making an at
lack upon Joe Polser which reasonably
indicated to delendant that said POlser
was then In danger Ct death or serious
bodily injury ut tho hands Of said Hum.
phreys, then such killing would bo jug
JiiaDle homicide, because under such
circumstances defendant or any other
person had the right 10 Kill said Hum
phreys to prevent said threatened in
jury TO Joe Polsorj and If you believe
that the killing occurred under these
circumstances you will acquit
the defendant, and if you have a reason
able doubt as TO whether the killing Oc-
Cured under these circumstances, you
VIII also acquit the defendant. If, upon
the other hand, defendant killed said
humphreys while no was making an
attack upon Joe POlsor, and II such at
ted 70 tho MIND OF defendant that Polser
was in danger Of death, nor of serious
bodily injury, vt the hands of Hum
phreys, then defendant would have no
right ~ kill Humphreys TO prevent an
assault or battery upon POlsor, which
did not reasonably indicate to defend
ant that POlser was about to be killed,
nor seriously injured, and if the killing
occurred under these circumstances,
defendant would be guilty OF murder or
manalaughter, as you may find under
the instructions herein given, defining
those olienses.
If defendant did kill Il. E, Hum
Phreys, and If when no killed MIN said
Humphreys was in tho act OF making
an attack upon defendant, which
reasonably indicated TO the mind
of defendant that said Humphreys
was about TO kill defendant or was
ssout 10 infict upon defendant 8omess
rious bodily injury, then under such
circumstances defendant would have
the right TO kill him and the killing
would be in self defense. Aud if YOU
believe that said killing occurred under
these circumstances you will acquit tho
defendant, and II you have a reasonable
doubt IS TO whether tho killing occur
red under these circumstances you will
also acquit defendant.
This instruction is given you subject
TO tho following qualifications: II you
find that the killing did occur under
those last mentioned circumstances,
still II you are satisfied from the evl-
dence beyond reasonable doubt that
defendant provoked and brought on
said attack and did so for the purpose
OF having an opportunity of Killing said
Humphreys,or for the purpose of infiict-
la 10
then ia such event deiendsnps right to
invoke the doctrine of self defense
would be lost 10 him and the killing
would be murder or granddaughter as
you may find under the instructions
herein given defining those oflens es.
III you have reasonable doubt as TO
whether Joe PolAer killed Il. Il. Hum
phries you will Rcquit the defendant.
To convict the defendant in this case
you must DO satisti cd from the evidence,
beyond reasonable doubt, that all OF
tho three following propositions are
true:
First-That defendant did kill e. Il.
Humphreys.
Soc0nd-Thst defendant did not kill
him In defense of Joe Polser, so as TO
make IL Unsuitable homicide.
Third-That defendant did not kill
him Ia soli-deiense.
Ii you have "A reasonable doubt az 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
ana competent evidence, and II, upon
consideration OF all the evidence In tho
case, you have reasonable goubt OF
tho defendants guilt you will lind him
not guilty.
GEORGE n. ALDRnnuE,
District JudIe.
While the Jury was out various were
the coniectures ad to what tho verdict
would be, and when, ~ 1880 o'clock, q
deputy sheriff announced that body, the
interest Of the crowd was awakened,
and IL pressed forward to the railing
enclosing the bar, eager to hear
tho result. Huhnicutt, the nc.
cusCd, looked as calm and serene
As May morn Ne the
indictment upon which was written tho
verdict OF the jury, giving him eithor
liberty imprisonment or death, was
| passed by the foreman of the fury TO
the clerk, who read; ave, the Jury,
iind the defendant guilty OF murder Ia
tho first degree, and fix his punishment
AZ life IN the state penitentiary
for lio.n These words did
not affect the prisoner in the least, who.
turning around to an officer, remarked;
L HHN.a.U II. "a 4