The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1885-10-28

act of killing, yet, when the State has introduced tes.
timonY to provo the circumstances attending tne
homicide from which 0 conclusion OF malice or want
Of malice Is to be drawn. the presumption or nance
is not applicable to the cnse and cannot be relied on
but the fury must be satisfied OF the existence OIL
malice beyond oil reasonable doubt.
l charge you that because malice Is one OF
the essential ingredients Of murder. as that
offense is described and when the facts and
circumstances of the killing are given to the
doubt. If q defendant stands charged with
murder and the killing is Proved, ana NO
more than the law raises an implication OF
malice which is enough to support a Vero'c'
10. Although the law presuries the sanity Of the
prisoner. vet, when tho State has Introduced evidence
to show the condition OF the prisoners mind at tho
homicide, from which evidence Q conclusion OF his
s~,undness or unsoundness is to be drawn, the rre;
sumption OF sanity is not applicable 70 the cage and
cannot be relied on, but the jury must be satisfied Of
the prisoners sdnity beyond oil reasonable doubt.
I do not charge you that because according
to my construction Of the decisions OF our
Courts on that subject, the rule Is otherwlse'
as I will state 10 you hereafter.
IL. II the jury believe that the homicide was the
result of intoxication at the time OF tho homicide,
but, that such intoxicati6n was the result Of drinking
to soothe the pain o. erysipelss. or the re'nit OF I'M
ment Of mind because OF long continued and e1ces'
sise drinking, or the result Of all three causes com:
bined, and nOt the result Of simple and voluntary In.
toxication, he should be acquitted.
I cannot charge you that
-. II the jury believe the prisoner was drunk at
the time of the homicide, the doctrine that drunken
ness lie no excuse for crimo does not apply unless that
drunkenness was the direct and proximats cause OF
the homicide.
7 cannot charge you that as put, because
suppose q defendant charged with having
killed from malice, n was drunk at the
time. I could not charge that. Unless the act
Was the Immediate result Of the drunkenness
the doctrine of drunkenness would notapply,
but in q case Of that sort the doctrine that
drunkenness Is no excuse for crime does Ger
tainly apply, and I will state to you hereafter
in what cases the doctrine OF drunkenness ia
no excuse applies, and cases In which 1t does
not apply.
10. That II the jury find from the evidence that
the homicide Is attributable r1ore to the impairment
of mind from epileptic attacks or from long c%ontin-
ned drink, or from both, than to the prisoners drunk.
ennees at the time Of the homicide, then the jury
must Hnd o verdict of not guilty.
Well, I cannot charge you that for the same
reason for refusing TO charge other requests,
for the reason that it fs not merely an I'm.
pairnent of mind that excuses the prisoner
for his acts, but impairment of min to a par
ticular extent and degree to which thel law at
tributes that effect
"A. That II the jury find from the evidence that
the prisoner was In q Suite Of intoxication at the time
Of the homicide and had by long continued drinking
lost control of his appetite or thirst for drink, he
should be acquitted.
I cannot charge you that.
10. In ascertmning the soundness or unsoundness