The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-10-26
The JURY CHARGED.
MEYERS LIFE IN THE HANDS
OF THE TWELVE.
The Law OF Ly ing in Wait Clearly
Defined by Judge Du-
bose.

The arguments Of counsel in the
Meyer case consumed the entire day
in the Criminal Court Yesterday.
Speeches OF consi derable length were
made by Messrs. Ryan, Turner and
Can't for the defense, and Peters snd
Wright for the prosecution. Col.
CAN'T was never mere eloquent, his
pathetic appeal moving everyone in
the Courtroom almost to tears.
Judge Dubose, at er charging upon
the general law of homicide, charged
the jury that if the proof should show
thai defendant lay in welt for the de-
ceased with the purpose of commit
ting an unlawful act, and in carrying
out his design he killed the deceased,
who opposed him and epdeavored to
prevent it, he (ths defendant) is
guilty Of murder in the first degree,
although it was not part Of his (ths
defendanps) original plan and
scheme 10 kill him, because the kill
ing was in the pursuit Gf an unlawful
act, and the law presumes he came
or was prepared to make good bis de.
signs against any opposition.
II the proof should show that the
defendant came 10 his place of resi-
dence and secreted himself in one of
the rooms occup ed by himself and
family, and by or through the agency
of his wife induced tie deceased to en-
ter his place Of abode for the purpose
OF compelling him 10 give up to him
(defendant) an amount Ct money (it
matters not for what purpose) and on
deceased entering. he sprang toward
him, and with loaded pistol de-
manded that he hold on or hold up
bis hands, intending thereby to force
him to yield to his demands, and in
60 doing the defendant killed the de-
ceased, then in that event defendant
would be guilty Of murder in the
frat degree.
Lying in wait means lying in am
bush or concealment for the purpose
OF numbering or committing some
other unlawful act. The act OF lying
in wait is evidence OF elaboration
and intention, and is such evidence of
malics that it makes the killing. when
it takes place, murder in the fist de-
gree, and proof of deliberation, and
generalization is not req aired.
The provocation where man finds
another in thu act of adultery with his
wife, the law declares 10 be of very
grievous nature, hard to be borDe !;
that the injury is loo great
and for which compensation cannot
be offered and cor cludes then in the
first transports of passion he kills the
| I'D t,lf hn 10 nnlu rxtrilfxr nf n
slaughter. But if he lay in wait for
the purpose of catching the adulterer
in the &c. with bis wife and is sue
cessful in so doing, and kills him, it is
murder, for he had had time by the
act Of lying in wait for replication.
II the proof shows that the defend
ant suddenly came upon the deceased
in the act of adultery with his wife,
and he was thereby thrown into a
transport of passion, and he killed
him, tLen defendant is guilty of man
slaughte but if he had time for de-
liberation, aud be killed the deceased
with malice, while in the act of adul-
terry with his wife, or any time there
sfter, he is guilty of murder. You will
look to the proof in the case to see
! how this is. The malice essential to
constitute the crime Of murder in the
second degree is not confined
to an intention to take the
life of the party slain, but
includes any intention to do any un.
lawful act which may probably result
in depriving of life; it is not so prop
erly spite or mslevolenCe to indi-
vidual in particular as an evil design
in general, the dictate Of wicked and
malevolent heart, it may be express or
implied in law.
II the intention and the act of the
defendant was the result OF impulse
and passion, excited upon suddenly
seeing the deceased in the act O.
adultery with his wife, the idea O.
malice is repealed and the killing II
voluntary manslEughter.