Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1885-11-13

The defendant On Trial stoutly insist
that be himself Vas not Of the party
and 10 not criminally implicated in tbeil
doinQs. Waving for the present vhethel
be vas one of Them, and tbs furthel
question whether, II not among them
he 10 30 implicated, let us look erss q
certain points On which depend ths
guilt or innocence Of those who we're Of
the party.
Aman's mere presence at tee CON
mission Of crime, even though be doe:
not attempt 70 prevent is, doss not max,
him jointly guilty with the perpesrater
To be guilty. he must assent to I'll.
crime. And II be assents TO IL by ans
word or act, he ID guilty, sat not other
wise. HIS assent can De proved by cir
cunstansez. From bis mere bodily
presence she jury are at liberty to infel
his consent and concurrence, when the
other circumstances shsv a want OF
other reason or explanation for his be
ing there. And when several are engaged
together IN DONG an unlawful thing, and
oue of them IN doing IL kills a man, ali
Who are present engaged With him. oil
consenting to or readJ TO aid him 10 the
unlawful thing are guilty. But il
1t be positively proved that one or more
of party Of persons, one OF whom /;
on trial, are guilty. while Is 10 not proved
that all are, an there rem ,ins a reason
able doubt as Co whether the person on
trial IL enc of the guilty, he must be
acquitted.
In this case the prosecution claims
that tbs pers n or persons, whoever they
were, Who did the killing went With
guns TO the Chinese camp for the pur
pose Of soaring or intimidating the Cni
nese, and tnat at the tune Of the killing
they were engaged IN carrying out this
purpose of intimidation S1ch a pur-
pose of intimidation. il it existed. Was
an unlawful parpose, and everything
done or committed in prosecution or
furtherance Of such a purpose vas an
unlawful act. Ii is not urged or claimed
by the prosecution that, apart from the
killing itself, they were engaged In the
commission Of any other unlawful act
or coarse of action, nor does the evi
dence. in my opinion. afford any reason
able color for thinking that they were;
therefore / take 1t for granted that.
apart from the killing itself, they were
not engaged in any other unlawful
thing or proceeding. Whether the kill
ing was unlawful 10 for you TO say under
these instructions
IL the party who went to the Chinese
camp went there at night with guns for
the purpose of iAtimidating the Chi
nese. and while Prosecuting that pur-
pose and because Of their being engaged
In 1t they were fired on by the Chinese,
nj in Afu q GSa FIN Nm
slain, then the killing was unlawful
This would be so. even thongn it vas
beforehand expressly stipulated among
the members Of the party that in no
event should q gun by fired; because
the sct Of shooting by the Chinese
would be a probable consequence Of the
act of intimidation, and every man
ought to foresee and assume the proba-
BILE consequences Of his own acts.
The defendant Hughes, il he was
present at the shooting and killing, as
senting to the prosecution Of the IN
lawful purpose of Intimidation, would
share the guilt of the killing with all
others who might be guilty. So, tea,
he would share that guilt, IL, though not
present at the killing, he had ooun
seled. aided and sbstted them In the
unlawful intimidation. II ON the even
ing Of the shooting, he counseled and
the purpose OF intlmida
ton and vent part way to the Chinese
camp in furtheranoe Of the common
unlawful design and then turned back
sut without demonstrating
With the others, or dSing anything to
turn them from their unlawful purpose.
then, notwithstanding hs turned back,
he IL TO be deemed party to tn un-
lawful killing. But the mere fact that
was present with the party
az or near the hop house on TIbbe,ts'
farm, and started with them to the Chi
nese camp 10 not sufficient to make him
liable for the killing.
ALI unlawful killing il at very least
IL, therefore, under the
give. You find the defend
ant Hughes q party to the unlawful
killing, you will ind him guilty of msn
slaughter or some higher grade of crime.
Whether he Ia guilty OF murder III
either degree, you will determine by an
application Of the principles aud def
nitions give you. IL the killing was
and maliciously done and be
Was a participant in the purpose and
the malice, as we'll IS the killing. then
he 10 guilty Of murder in tue socoad de
gree. but not otherwise. He Is guilty of
murder IN the first degree only 10 case
the muidsr was deliberate and premed-
itsted on his part.
Whenever a man does an unlawful act
or pursues an unlawful course of action,
ths natural or probable consequence OF
which Is to kill q human being. and hs
knows, at and before the doing Of 1t,
sh At such is the natural or probable
and yet does 10 intention
ally. Notwithstanding that knowledge,
and death actually results, as direct
{, any human being what
ever, tne Law considers that he purpose
ly and malioiousiy killed the person who
who 10 died. And if any defendant
named in the Indictment did taas par
pssely and maliciousiy kill Fang Wue
by shooting and toe defend mt who
is now on trial Is not the man VINO
fired the fatal shot. bat was pressst at
tue time of the killing, aiding and
abetting the unlawful act or course
Of action, which naturally resulted 10
the death. or. not being present, coun
selIed or aided and Allotted that act or
course of action. and defendant, al or
before he 90 counselled or aided and
abetsed the shooting, knew or had good
reason TO believe that the likely and
natural or probable consequence OF the
act or course of action would be to kill
a hannah being, and Notwithstanding
su, b knowledge was willing that the act
should DO done or course OF action pur
sued, then the Law considers that he
himself purposcly and maliciousiy killed