The Forest Republican. [volume] (Tionesta, Pa.) 1869-1952, 1886-05-26
wALTON-MEALY MURDER TRIAL.
[continued from SECOND Paae.l

care TAKEN IN your selection is expressive
of the caution with which the law requires
that trials, involving the crime of killing
human being, shall be conducted; and
| 10 is not necessary that the Court should
admonish you that your office is one of
grave responsibility Doubtless, you so
regard IL and we do not hesitate TO express
our belief that you Will discharge your
| duty with a conscious regard for the pub
lie welfare on the one hand, and the rights
of the defendant on the other Before pro-
ceeding further we ask you, during all
your deliberations, to bear in mind that it
is a well settled rule in the administra-
ton of the criminal law, and one that
should be particularly needed in tho trial
ofa case where the otfense charged, is that
of murder, that the burden ofproofis upon
tho Commonwealth to establish the guilt
of the defendant beyond all Iea-
sonable doubt. The law presumes
n defendant to be innocent of charge
alleged against him until he is proved to
! be guilty. Conjecture or speculation as to
guilt must not be permitted to stand as
proof. On the trial of civil cases, contro-
Versies between man and man in regard
TO property rights, a mere preponderance
of evidence may decide the case, but not
so in a case like the one on trial. The ev-
idence that will justify the conviction of
this defendant, must not only be such as
is consistant with his guilt, but it must be
such as is inconsistent with any other rca-
then that each one of tho essential ingre-
dients going to make up the crime charged
in the Indictment, must be established by
such evidence as leaves no reasonable
doubt in your minds OF the defendants
guilt.
We now ask your careful attention TO
the legal definition ofthe crime ofmurder,
because such definition kept i'm mind will
be guide to you in your deliberations.
Murder, is when person of sound mind
and memory unlawfully kills any rea-
sonable creature in being, and under the
peace of the Commonwealth, with malice
atorethought express or implied. The
killing of man by man is homicide.
Did the decease come to his death by the
hand of the defendant, Walton If he
did, homicide has been committed. and
the question arises, what is the grade or
character of the homicide2 All homicide
is presumed to be murder until the evil
dence makes the contrary appear; and il
the killing OF the defendant is established,
it is incumbant on the defendant to over
come this presumption by showing such
| circumstances of excuse or alleviation as
will reduce the otlense from murder to a
milder kind of homicide. Has evidence
been given to such a character as satisfies
you that the wound causing the death of
Mealy was occasioned by the accidental
discharge of the pistol in the possession OF
the defendant, at the time Mealy was
bending over him, in the manner testified
by the witnesses? Did the defendant pro-
cure thepistol from Reyner, and immediate
| ly before the fatal event, for an innocentand
justifable purpose? and was it itdischarged
| without any intention or voluntary action
on the part of the defendant if SO, he is
| not guilty of any punishable otfense, and
! in that event YOU should render verdict
| of not guilty. Did the defendant procure
the pistol for an honest, bona fide purpose
of defending himself against an anticipa-
f11 ut, IL fnolxr nd wall
grounded belief that such attack would
result in his own death, or in grevious
! bodily harm2 If he did, and fired the
| pistol at n time, and under circumstances
| when he had good cause to believe, and
| did in fact believe that his life was in i'm
mediate peril, or that he was in danger of
suffering grievous bodily harm, and that
there was no probable way of avoiding such
| peril, then we say he had the rightto use itby
way of protecting himself from such an
| tiripated mischief, even to the extent of
| killing his assailant. But we say to you
that the peril to life or bodily injury that
will justify a resort to deadly weapon in
self defense, must appear to the defendant
| to be such that no other means ofavoiding
such peril can reasonably be resorted to.
On the part of this defendant, it is al
| legged that for sometime before the time of
| his death, Mealy, for some alleged impro-
| prieties of speech INDUCED in by defend
| ant, had been seeking quarrel with him;
| that he had made threats that he would
inflict injuries on him, and that these
threats had come to his knowledge. That
| at different times when the parties met,
Mealy sought to provoke a fight and bring
about a meeting that he might avenge the
| real or supposed grievance ; that knowing
this, when the parties met at Mr.. Reyner's
| store on the evening of the 9th of Febru-
| ary, the defendant had good reason to be-
| lieve that he would be assailed, that he
sought to avoid Mealy, but was unable to
do so by reason of fierce attack upon
him, and that even If he used the pistol
purposely, did so only when there was no
other way of avoiding it or at least great
| bodily harm seemed feasible. Whether
this claim or these allegations of the de-
fendant are sustained by the evidence, is
| for you to answer and not for the court.
! We express no opinion on it. The law
| has constituted you the tribunal to de-
termine what facts are established by the
evidences: and we have no right and GER
tainly no disposition to assume to decide
| questions within your exclusive province.
| We can only advise you, that if you find
the averments of the defendant to be as
they claim, and as have just recited, then
! the conclusion of the law is that the kill
| ing was in self defense, and you should
| find a verdict of not guilty. 1 think it
| proper to say in this connection, that the
| question whether Walton had or had not
been guilty of inIproprietles of speecL, Is
not material question in tho case on trial.
Even if he did indulge in speech Of an ex-
! asperating nature with reference to the
person whose reputation Mealy felt bound
| to protect, resort to personal violence
was not justifiable.
| Should you find that the defendant is
not entitled to an acquittal on the ground
| that the discharge of the pistol was not an
accident or on the ground that the killing
was not in self-defense, but that the samo
was caused by the voluntary use Of the
pistol by Walton, then you will proceed to
| INQUIRE under the instructions we shall
Give YOU, whether he is guilty of any Of
tense covered by the Indictment. The
indictment charging the crime Of murder
we repeat the definition of that otfense.
When a person of sound mind and MEM