Daily Republican., 1886-02-15
he 10 entitled to the benefit OF that
doubt, and should be acquitted"

he is entitled to the benefit OF that
doubt, and should be acquitted"
To this the Court said: That It In q
correct statement Of the law. Apply II
to the present case by adding: That II
the Jury, after . calm review OF all the
Testimony, and regarding It alone, have
in their minds q reasonable doubt, such
as honest and intelligent men may en-.
tertain in this cnse of the guilt of the
prisoner, that is as 10 whether he fred
the fatal shot under necessity to save
his own life, or to prevent the infliction
of enormous bodily harm, he is entitled
to the benefit of that doubt, and shonld
be acquitted. While this answer TO the
instruction prayed for is given, the
jury must not forget what have before
said about the duty upon o party as
sailed feloniously to escape from b ia
adversary, II he can, before he takes
his life.
"Second, That retreating to the wall
| Is not demanded by the law, in order
to enable the defendant to Avail him
self Of the plea of self-dafence when his
|asssilant is armed with a deadly
weapon. or when the attack upon him
is mauifestly with deadly purpose"
The answer to this was, that 1t is not
1 the law Of this State that q man can
take the life Of an armed assailant in
self defence, IL he can. in any other way
as for instance by rstreating from him, !,
escape the danger OF the assault, but II
the assault Ia OF such Q nature that Ii
could not be escaped from without i'm
minent peril Of lie or great injury to
the person, no attempt at escape need
be made, but the assailant may be in.
stantly killed.
Third. That IL the defence had the
| technical legal rightto drive his wagon
through that field and the prisoner was
mistaken in supposing that he had a
right to say by which road deceased
should Cross his land, still, ii the de.
fceased attempted in the first instance
TO enforce his supposed right by vio-
lenoe and o deadly weapon, and thus
| put the prisoners life III danger or
Threatened him with enormous bodily
harm. then the prisoner had o right to
clay the deceased to save his own life
from apparent and imminent danger ,ol
avert the infiction Of enormous bodily
harm"
This proposition was answered as fol
tlows.
This proposition is answered by that
portion of the charge l have already
given you. But will say further thai
the deceased had no right to exercise
his authority in common with others oi
the public, in o violent manner, as by
show of arms and threat to use them II
resisted /; but, supposing he had such
right, the prisoner had none to interfere
with him in any way, and II he volun.
tarily went in his way and opposed
him, being armed himself, he cannot
justify taking the others life on the
ground Of self defence, because of his
unlawful preparation for a contem
plated conflict of his interference.
" Fourth. That II the jury shall
believe that the prisoner was first at
tackled by the deceased with deadly
weapon, whether club or gun, whereby
his life was placed In imminent dan
ger, or enormous bodily harm threat
ened TO his person, he was justified II
Eilling the deceased, If such killing wa
| reasonably necessary to save his life, o.
lavert an enormous bodily harm"
i This was answered
II the Jury believe that the deceased
i was the assailaut and had no right I
enter upon the prisoners land as
way farer, and yet intended Co force hi
:. way through it with his team; an
!, Iopposed, TO the reasonable resistance 9
the prisoner the use Of q deadly weapon
from the effect of the use of which tn
prisoner would have had no means G
escape, he had the right to kill him {
protect his own life, or his body froI
lgrievous harm.
"Fifth. That the right OF the de
ceased to pass over the land at all, de
pended upon the impassAbility of tn
highway, and that the right to sue
passage began at the place where sue
impassability existed.
i This proposition was assented to, wit
1.-The qualification that the ad JOINING lam
Ishould be accessible from such place
If not, the obstruction may be consider
ed up to the point where the adjointn
land could be entered upon.
II "Sixsh. That the deceased had n
absolute right to pass over any part G
!, the prisoners land that he chose, whe
!, the prisoner had opened q way tina
was reasonably passable, and he ha'
} indicated and invited both the decease
and others to use II"
The Court assented to this PROPOSE
tion.
n "Seventh. That the right in case Q
an obstruction to a hIgaway, in tn
public, to pass over adjoining land,
I qualified by the obligation 70 do tn
} owner of such adjoining laud tae leas
: possible harm"
II This was also assentsd to by tn
ICourt.
d The charge was concluded by tn
Chief Justice instructing the jury tina
, If they found the prisoner guilty OF an
4 crime whatever, 1t could not be fo
! murder OF either the first or second de
8 gree.
II The use of highly seasoned animi
: | food and alcoholic drinks are the pr'
= disposing causes of gout. When avail
i of its presence lose no time in pre-
o curing Salvation Oil. 1t kills pain.
b cents,
Tho OeeOrOOn Tonight.
ell Atkinson & Cooks Combination wi
II Al nWyn