Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1886-03-09

/ read from the statute :--"Whoevef un-
lawfully kills q human being IN tho heat
Of passion or sudden provoca,ion. without
express or implied malice Aforethoughi,
or commits msn.lAughier s defined by
tie common Law. shall be punished by
imprisonment for no, more than ten
year.. or be fined no, exceeding one thou.
sand dollars" Again. manslaugh,er
may be either voluntary or involuntary.
at common law. and because our statute
speaks Of msnslaugh,er upon sudden pas
sion or hea, Of blood. and also Of man
slaughter at common law. Il becomes
my duty to define 10 you the meaning OF
manslsughter at common law. as inclad.
ed and spoken Of In the section Of the
statute which | have read to you. Vol.
un,ary mAn.lAugh,sr. therefore. a, com.
mon Law, Il where there is an unlawful
killing Of another. wi,hou. malice. on
sudden quarrel or In the hsa, Of passion
where upon . sudden quarrel two person,
fsht and one OF them kills the Others
this is voluntary manslaugh,er. 80 also
II q man be greatly provoked by any
gro.. indigni,y. and Immediately kills
hi. sggre..or. !, is voluntary man'laash-
ter. and no, excu.able homicide, no, be-
ing in .elf.defenee nor 10 II murder. for
there !. no previous malice.
No prOvoea,iOn whatever can render
killing ju.,ihable OF even eIeu'able. The
most Il can do is to reduce !, TO man.
slaughter. For IL . man kills another
suddenly. without any, or without con-
siderable provoea,ion. the law implies
malice, and the killing 10 murder; but II
the provoca,ion be grea, and such as to
greatly provoke him. then the killing u
man.laughter only. But, as ! have said.
no provocaiion whatever can render kill
ing jus,ifable or eseu'able. The mos,
il can do is to reduce IL to manslsushier.
And In determining whether the killing
upon proyoeation amounts to murder or
manslaugh,er, the instrument, with which
the killing was done must also be taken
into consideration. for II Il be done with
a deadly weapon. /, will therefore be in.
feued that the intent was to take life.
and the provocA,ion mus, be grea, indeed
10 lower the grade Of the crime from
murder to mAn.laushisr. II the killing
be done. however. with a weapon no,
likely OF intended to produce death. q
lee. degree Of provica,ion will be saih-
eien, TO lower the grade TO manslaugh,er
in fact, the instrument employed mus,
bear reasonable proportion to the rov.
ocaiion, to reduce the offence 10 man.
slaughter. Again. any assault, in gener.
al, made with violence under eifcam.
stance. Of indigni,y upon a man. person,
II IL be resented Immediately by the death
Of the sggres.or. and !, appears ,ha, the
party acted In the hea, Of blood. upon
iha, proyiea,ion, will reduce the crime TO
man,laushier; thA, Is. will take Il from
the category Of murder and reduce Il to
a lower desree-,o the degree Of man.
slaughter. The line which distinguish.
between these prOviea,ion.. which will
and which will no, exienua,e the offence,
,ha, i., reduce IL from murder TO man.
slaughter. eAnno, be defined with certain.
~. The case, depend upon themselves.
in accordance with the circumstances
proved in the cases. Such proyoca,ion',
however. a. are In themselves calculated
TO provoke high degree Of resentment
and ordinarily induce a grea, degree OF
violerce. when compared with those
which ale Sigh, and trivial. and from
which a grea, degree Of violence does not
usually follow. may serve 10 mark the
distinction. But in considering what IL
regarded a. such adequate provoea,ion,
/, isa settled rule Of law, that no provo
cation by word, only. no matter how aP.
prob.ous or how greyious 'oever they may
be. will mitigate an Intentional homicide
90 as to reduce IL TO mAnslaush,er II the
person was killed with deadly weapon;
but IL upen prOvoea,ion by words aud
gesture. only the party. in the heat OF
passion, intended merely 10 chas,ise the
in.olencc Of the other by . box on the
ear. or with a stick which is small. OF
any other weapon no, likely to kill. and
death instantly en.ues. this would be only
manslaush,er. Where in the hea, OF
blood and on immediate pfovoca,ion one
person causes the death Of another. there
having been no previous malice. the Of
fence Is held TO be man'laushier Ba.
however greA, the proyoca,ion may have
been, II there ha. been a sutieisn, time
for the passions to sabside, and for rea.
son to assert her throne. or as the books
say: for reason to in,erpose. then the
killing, In such case. would no, be re-
duced to manslaugh,er, but would be
murder.
Now, gentlemen. may say to you
that all the evidence in this case is pure
ly for your consideration and not for
mine. I discharge my duty when | give
you the rules Of law, and call your at.
ien,ion in q general way TO the general
features Of the evidence in the case; what
the evidence Is that has been submitted
TO you. the credibili,y Of the witnesses,
the weigh, you will give to Il, is entirely
for you. may call your attention to
the theory Of the one side and the other.
bu, e1pres, no opinion. | leave the
questions Of fact for you TO consider and
determine. Now the theory Of the gov.
ernmen, here i.. gentlemen. ,ha, the kill
ing was either the result Of premedi,a.
ton, or was the result Of sudden passion
and withou, proper Justification. and that
|, canno, be reduced below the crime OF
manslaugh,er. On the other hand. the
theory Of defence Is that !, Was in self.
defence and tha, the provoca,ion. however
great. was sufficient TO justify the killing
and take |, form the eaiagory Of crime
and bring Il within the rules OF law
where death results in self.defence. i
will say. gentlemen. tha. have bad pre-.
seated to me the following requests. and
give them to you. and they are these,
in regard to the question Of self.defence,
and after which shall more particularly
call your attention to the question oi
self.defenoe.
1. 'Iu questions OF seif-defence, the
relative strength OF the parties may bo TAX