Arizona weekly citizen., 1885-01-17
Judge MeTer's DacisIan

ln the case of the Territory versus Tomas Salcido for assault to mprdo, l. Shidy, Judge Meyer, before wbor, the case Twas heard. rendered hi, decision at ten o'clock this morni,c, The case occupied the attention of ,be court Tor the past two days and attract Cd considerable attention. Much svm- pathy was expressed for young Salc;. do, who, beyond hIs own statement. bod no one to testify in bis behalf. Bail VIII, It Is understood, be furnished and the case goes before the next grand inrv winch will be called in March. The OiiIzES, as an item of news, while not having space for the entire testimonv publishes the text of the decisi, m in fnIl
 "fhe question at issue in this ,aaiter Is, was ths act committed by tle defend. ant Tn defence of his own person Lis property or the property of bis employ CTS. In comparing the testimony for tbs prosecution and the statement of inc defendant, he not having prodnced any evidence, We tiul Do material difTe.enre on the vital question here involyej namely: the assault to murder.
 The testimony shows, and the s;ata- meht of the defendant admits. that fine shot was fired at Shidey, ani Hide brands and Cameron's lives were threat. ened; all at that time being uuarme3 not making any demonstrations, neither using threasening language, nor adyauc- Ing upon the defendant in a hostile manner.
 This shot, according to the testimony, was deliberately fired at Shidy, not ac- accldently nor in self-defence If We be- lleve the statement of the defendant and hls subsequent acts, he meant to kill. lhls therefore dIsposes of the question of self-defense.
 Regarding the second proposition. the defense Of property, what do We find: In forming first conclusion in this question of defense of property We may disregard every act, and even the inten- tons of the parties who went there to pull down houses, and confine ourselves to the moment W hen the shooting took place If the defendant had caught any or all of the party in the act of de- stroying property, either his or his en- ployer's, then he would have been iusti- lied in defending 1t by all means in his power, otherwise not
 Would any man be justified in case his house was burning during his ab- sence 10 kill another because he was running towards 1t, or because this man whom he tried to shoot had come in company with another who had told the owner of the house previously that he was going to pull down an unfinished building, especially when the defendant knew, as he admits, that neither Shiiy, Hillebrand nor Cameron could have set fire to the building, for he says those three were in hIs sight, Hildebrand go- ing from his house to where Cameron was with him, and the other two were ID the house to which he had been called. and altogether were Tn the house until he, defendant, saw the light of the burning building.
 Mccartney pot being in sight at the time defendant suspicioned inn of being the man who Set fire to the building, and In running towards 1t he thought he recognized him as running away from it, and tried to shoot hIm.
 If he did see MJCa-tney run away from the building, would that justify him to shoot the others who went with him towards 1T, he knowing full we'll that they coul not have set fire to it!
 Thus 1t Is plaIn he did not shoot in defense of property. He, it appears, did shoot because he had the suspicion that the whole party was implicated. If we should advance this as a plea of jus tification, no mans life would be safe a moment. and thls plea is therefore ut- terly inadmissible, for this maxim once admitted it would open wide the door for the taking of human life to avenge imaginary suspicious.
 The assault therefore being unpro- voked, neither in defense of defendants life nor in the protection of his or his employers property, he must be held to answer the charge, and I, is so ordered"
 Bail was fixed at S2,O00.