The Abbeville messenger. (Abbeville, S.C.) 1884-1887, 1885-10-27

a If the jury belive that Ferguson in COM
infringing homicide acted under an uncon-
Etrollabie impulse, which was the result of I'M
soundness of mind, they must ucquit him.
Charged.
S. Unless the jury believe Ferguson was
capable of acting from an evil intent and that
such evil intent had arisen in his mind before
the act was they should acquit.
Charged.
6. The jury are to consider the state of Fer
guson's mind at the time the homicide was
committed, and if the evidence produced es-
tablishes the fact that his brain was diseased
he should be acquitted.
Refused.
7. There is no legal test of insanity but it
is IL question of fact to be decided by the Jury
upon all the evidence in the case as to the
mind at the time of the homicide.
Refused.
3. If The jury think it probable that Fereu-
sons mind at the time of the homicide, vas
excessive drinking or by both they must
ac9uit.
9. Although the law may presume malice
from the act of killing, yet, when the State
has introduced testimony to prove the cir
cunstanccs attending the homicide from
which IL conclusion of malice or want of NAL
is to be drawn, the presumption of malice is
not applicable to the case and cannot be relied
on, out the jury must be satisfied Of the ex-
o'h$ y VIM LII lCNSptlitptC usuDG.
Charged.
10. Although the law presumcs the sanity of
the prisoner, yet, when the State has intro
duccd the evidence to show the condition of
the prisoners mind at the time of the homi-
che from which evidence 4 conclusion of his
soUndncSs or unSoundncSS of mind is to be
drawn, the presumption of sanity is not appli-
cable to the case and cannot be relied on, but
the jury must be satisfied of the prisoners
sanity beyond all reasonable doubt.
Refused.
ii. If the jury believe that the homicide
was the result of INVESTIGATION ut the time of
the homicide, but, that such intoxication was
the result OF drinking to soothc the pain of
eryslpclas, or the result of Impairment of
mind because of long continued and ex-
cesslve drinking, or the result of all three
causes combined and not the result OF simple
and voluntary intoxication or with malice pre-
prense, he should DC acquitted.
Not charged.
IL. If the jury believe that the prisoner was
drunk ut the time of the homicide, the doc
crime THAT drunkenness is no excuse for crime
does not apply unless that drunkenness was
the direct and proximatc cause of the hom;-
eide.
Not charged.
IL. That if the jury find from the evidence
that the homicide is attributable more to the
Impairment of mind from ep;lcptic attacks or
from long continued drink, or from both, than
10 the prisoner drunkenness at the time Of
the homicide, then the jury must find a YER
dict of not guilty.
Refused.
Is. That if the jury find from the evidence
that the prisoner was in a state Of intoxica-
ton at the time of the homicide and had bv
long continued drinking lost control of his APP
petite or thirst for drink be should be %acquit-
ted.
Not charged.
10. In ascertaining the soundness or I'M
soundncss OF The prisoners mind at the time
OF the hGmicidc, the Jury mist take into con-
slderation his whole life, the evidence as to
his epileptic fits, as to instances of similar
disease in other member of his family, as to
his long continued use of alcoholic drinks,
while subject to e~pileptic fits, as to his dispo-
position to violence, as to his acute pain from
his melancholy, as to his threats of suicide,
and as to the want of motive in the commits
sion of the act.
Charged.
1G. II tho jury believe that there is a rea-
s0nable theory of the defendants innocence
consistent with the facts proved in evidence.
they must acquit the defendant.
Not charged.
IL. The prisoner is entitled to the benefit of
every reasonable doubt.
Charged.
The defendants requests to charge were
embraced IN me general charge of the Judge.
Upon the question of drunkenness as an ex-
cusc for crime, His Honor charged that vol
untary drunkenness was not an excuse for
crime; but that drunkenness long continued,
resulting in permanent uusoundness of mind,
did excuse crime.
The jury retired after the charge Of the
Judge, and remained out all of Friday night
and until 3 O'Clock p. m. Saturday, when they
were discharged, being unable to agree.
They stood seyen to five in favor of conviction.