Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1888-12-25
respondent is presumed to be innocsn, until
proved 10 be guilty

of November last the respondent. john Mul
vsrhill, inflicted one or more blows with hi
hss upon the head and face of Charles A
Luce. The government further claims ths
a. an immediate effect of the first blow, Lue,
fell partially over q rock and into sittin.
posture; and that thereupon. while Luce wsi
in that position. Mulyerhill continued tht
assault by two more blows with his FIST OF
Luce's face, snd \ severe kick with his b 10
on the right side Of Luce's head II is no
IN eonu uoversy that, although Luce rvmsihao
about his work for more than an hour, ht
went 10 his home at noon and soon became
unconscious, and died the follo~ing lay. II
is not in controversy that his death resulted
| from an edusion of blood and pressure OF
the brain caused by the rupture of blood
vessel. The government claims that ,hi,
blood vessel was vein back of the left eye
and that il was ruptured by force OF the
blows inflicted upon the head and face b.,
| the respondent. Ii claims thai the violence
thus used by the respondent was unprovoked
and utterly without legal Justification or eI
eHse; and that. alth Iugh he did not Intend to
Kill, and his act was not calculated, under
ordinary Circumstances, 10 cause death, yel
he must be held responsible for the conse-
quences of his unlawful violence, and is, a,
ieast, guilty of manslaushler, as charged IN
the Indictment
The respondent denies that he struck NOR.
than one effective blow with his hsi, aud de-
nies hat he Hhicted any injury whatever
with his boot. 1t i. said that the respondent
had no intention To kill and no purpose TO in
flict serious injury thar the force used BY
hlm, If unls ful, was not calculated To
cause death, or even serious injury, under
ordinary circumstances, that the proof 10 not
clear and convincing that any particular
blood vessel was rupturtd, and finally, the
respondent claims that the evidence does not
give full salts action, that death was caused
Dy the bows inflicted by the respon lent.
Your tirst inqairy may be, whether the
force applied by the respondent to the head
and face of Luce, was unlawful or not for
If the defendants conduct was Law full, he is
not responsible for the consequences, however
serious OF painful
Ev.ry citizen attending TO his own pur-
suits aud being in the peace of the State, 10
entitled TO protec ion against violence and
injury at the hands of another. Not only is
All assault and battery unlawful, but if two
voluntarily and by agr, ement, use force or
blows toward each other 50 as TO be guilty
of an atfray each commits an unlawful act
The law holds every man responsible for his
unlawful violence upon another. No other
rule is considered with due regard for the
protecio of lives and persons, and the peace
and order of ciety. Hence il is n familiar
illustration in criminal law that if two per
sons mutually invite a collision and engage
IN light under All agreement for that pur-
pose. without any dangerous weapon on
either side, and one kills the other, though
unintent onally by the force and effect of
his unlawful blow, he is at least guilty of
manslsu Shter. But there may be lawful
blow. Personal violence may be justified
by the principle of self defence. In this
case however, full aud precise statement
of the principles of self defence is not re-
quired by the evidence or request of coun-
sci. Ii is not claimed or suggested that the
respondent was threatened with any bodily
injury by the deceased after he fell over the
rock. SO that force WAS necessary for self
protection on the part of the defendant. lie
was only required to go away and not molest
the deceased. But there is some evidence
tending TO show that Mulverhill Inflicted the
blows by way of punishment for an oppro-
brious eplthet alleged to have been applied
by Luce to the respondents mother. Wheth-
er this was real or imaginary or = pretend
ed grievance, is entirely Immaterial. Inst 1t
ing epithets or abusive language can never
justify personal violence. No man is al
lowed thus TO take the law into his own
hands in the effort TO obtain satisfaction for
injuries received. O,her and more enlight-
ened and appropriate remedies are provided
by law if the injury is real.
There is also evidence that the respondent
was under the influence of intoxicating
liquor TO a considerable degree. lntoxlca-
tOn on the public streets is made crime
by our statu es, and has always been regarded
by the common law as not only immoral AMI
but IN u certain sense criminal,
1t is therefore 4 familiar legal doctrine
plicable TO all ordinary cases that voluntary
intoxication affords no justification or excuse
for crime committed under its influence. IL
one Voluntarily becomes so drunk as not to
know what he is about, aud then with
deadly weapon kills another, he commits
murder; though if incapable of forming au
intent, ii would be murder in the second de
gree. And so if no dangerous weapon 10
use and death results from y blow o her
wise unlawful inflicted under the influence
of in'0Ication, the offense will be al least
This is in iespensibIe to The |
safety of the community. lie who voluo- !
tarily puts an enemy into his mouth to
in contemplation of Law and responsible for
his acts toward his fellow men.
But If you iini that the blows inflicted by
the respondent were unlawful. still it i. sug.
gested that the evidence of the government
does not give full satisfaction that ieath ~.s
caus d by the unlasful blow or force OF the
respondent. 1t is earnestly claimed that the
testlm)ny does not go TO the eIten. of show
ing any violence actually inflicted by kick
ing, that there is no witness for governmen,
who saw the defendants boot IN actual con.
tact with the head of the deceased: ard that
there was no such confusion on the side of
the head as there must have been, if kicked
with sucn force an violence as to cause .
slight cracking of the skull and rupture Of
a blood vessel on the opposite side of the head.
1t is further argued that the surgeons disa-
gree as 20 the blood vessel that was rup-
tured, and to the force that caused the
rupture that it is an Unprecedented and ex-
traor linary thing for fatal rupture Of a
blood vessel to occur, as the result of alhlOw
with the list upon the eye or the head just
above the eve.
The government says there vas no rea-
sonable doubt that death resulted from the
unlawful act of the defendant II says the
surgeons agree as TO all the material points,
that death was carsei by the rupture Of
blood vessel back of the left eye, that the
precise name or location of the vessel is i'm.
material that the surgeons agree that such
vein could not be ruptured without violence
and that it might be produced either by
kick on the right side of the head or a Sc
we're blow on the head over the eye
that unconsciousness followed soon after
the violence received upon the head, and
that the governments theory is consistent
with all the fac., aud fully supported by tee
surgeons testimony. Finslly the government
inquiries if the defendants blows did not
cause death, what didt
II yo1 ii1d that the defendants act of vio-
lence was unlawful and that il caused the
death of Charles A. Luce, it is your duty TO
return verdict of guilty. You may find
that there va. no intention to kill, and even
hnd that It could not reasonably be anticipated
thstunder ordinary circumstsnees death would
lence; but if death did in fact result from
his unlsr ful force, he must be held respon-
sible fer that consequence.
If ytu fbI that defendants violence was
unlawful, but are not fully satisfied that it
caused tine death of Charles A. Luce, you
will find him guilty of assault and battery
only.
The jury retired and after an absence of
about fifteen minutes, returned sith a YER
Dict Of msnslaughter a. charged in the indict-
ment.
Willie Stevens. convicted for breaking
and entering, vas brought up for sentence