Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-07-12

wv" '"V hist enVWu tue greatest
sympathy with him.
The prisoner relies upon the tes,irnony
nnd The law to- show that he acted in sels.
deicnce and that. therefore, the homicide
va lustlosoie, and so he expects verdict
~ IL O'Clock tho Jury came into cour,
9hder The charge OF Sergeant Carter and
DePuv-Serkeant Macon. The courtroom
was srowocd to It's utmost capacity, about
persons.
AZ 1850 o'clock the Judge took b,s sent
on the hencb, and Mr.. Allan requested that
the testimony before the Corontr's fury he
SLOWED IS evidence IN this case. The Com.
alcnwealtn's Attorney sgreed, and the re.
cord Was admitted.
TIE 5uRY INSTRUCTED.
Here The Judge read the following charge
10 the Jury:
The Court insiruets the Jury as follows:
!. Murder j. the unlawful Killing OF any
person with malice aforethonght.
2 Murder Is distinguished by The law Of
Virginia - murder in the first degree and as
murder in the second degree.
3. Every homicide IN Virginia ls presumed
10 be murder IN The second degree In order
10 elevate the offence 10 murder IN the first
degree The burden OF Irooi s. upon the
Commonwealth. and to reduce the offence 10
manslaughior the burden OF proof Is upon
tbe prisoner.
4. To constitute murder In the first degree
Che prisoner must have been incited TO the
killing by malice. and the killing must have
been wllful, deliberate, and premedltaicd
act on the part OF the prisoner; that Il 20
say, be must have wilcd. deliberated, and
Iremediiaied that he should knit deceased
or DO him some serious bodily injury, the
necessary result Of which would be bis
death, and from which he died.
Whenever The killing Il yiiful, deliberate,
and promeditated the law inlers malice from
The fact, I'm the absence OF proof 10 the con-
traTy, and The burden OF dlpr0ying such
malice is upon The accused.
4 mortal wound gwen with deadly
weapon IN the previous possession OF the
slayer, without any or upon very slight
pyOY0cation, Is pTmd-facie, wilfu, delb-
crate, snd pTemedtated killing in the all
scncc ~ proof TO The contrary, and throws
upon the accused the necessity OF proving
cx'ouuatng circumstances.
TO constitute wiliul, deliberate. and pre-
medtaled killing IL il not necessary that an
intention 70 Nil should not exist for sny
particular length OF time prior 20 the actual
Killing; it's only necessary that such inieu-
ton should come into existence for the first
TIME n the tins OF such killing or any time
previously.
when homicide Is committed upon provo
cation II must appear that the provOcaii0u
was considerable. and not slight only, in Of
der 10 reduce the offence 10 manslaughicr;
and the Jury are instructed that 10 sustain
proyocltion rs defence 70 murder in the
first degree u must be SHOWN that the pri-
soner az the time the mortal wound wa
given was deprived OF the power Of self
control 10y the prOvocaton which he had
received; and in deciding the question whc-
G her this was or was not the case, regard
must be had TO the character OF the proioca-
tion, 20 the nature Of the act by which death
was caused, 20 the time which elapsed be-
tween the prOyocalion and the act which
clu.ed death, 20 the offenders conduct during
,he interval. and 20 all the circumstances
tending o. show the state OF his mind at the
time he committed the act
Although the jury may believe from the
evidence that the prisoner gave the wound
winch Killed the deceased during quarrel;
vet, II they further believe from the evidence
beyond reasonable doubt that the quarrel
WIS provoked and brought on by the prison
or with the object to provoke the deceased 10
strike him In order 10 have preteXt 10 take
bis life. or with the iHtentiOn to take his life
Il he should strike him, and that the PRISON.
er did tbus give him the mortal wound from
which the deceased died, as charged IN the
then they are instructed that
such an act constitutes IA Uilful, deliberate,
aud premeditatcd killing, and as such is MUIR
der in the hrst degree.
" the Jury believe from the evidence That
The killing aforesaid was malicious but not
y'iliul, deliberate, and premtditatcd, then
tuch killing was murder in the second de-
gree.
When death ensues on a sudden provoca-
iiou or sudden quarrel without malice pre-
pense, the killing Is manslaughier; and in
order to reduce the offence TO killing in self
defence the prisoner must prove tNO things:
First. That before the mortal blow was
given he declined further combat and had
as far as he could with safety; aud
.econdy, he killed the deceased through the
necessity OF preserving his own life or TO
save himself from great bodily harm.
The Court further instructs The jury that II
they believe from the evidence that at the
lime Of the alleged assault the deceased
made in attack upon the prisoner apparently
with the intent 10 do him a great bodily
BARN. and that the prisoners act was the re-
,ult Of q reasonable apprehension, 90 his part
honestly entertained. that ms act was neces-
cary 10 protect himself from great bodily
BARN then threatened, then the jury should
Ind the prisoner not guilty.
The Court insfructs the Jury that person
need not be in actual imminent peril Of his
BE or Of great bodily harm before be may
lay his ssssilsut. IL is sufficient II IN good
aith be has q reasonable belief from the facts
~ they appear to him al the tine that he is
~
urther instructed that on a TRIAL the necessi-
" relied on to justify the killing must not
rise out OF the prisoners own misconduct.
NR. wADDrLL SPEAKS.
Ex.Judge Edmund Waddill, Jr,, lead the (
.reument IN behalf OF the Commonwealth. I
he said n was cause Of real congratulNtiOn /.
bat they were approaching the end Of so I'M /
lortant a trial with so little conflict in The I
that in the celebrated murder /
gees OF this country the most difficult point /
o prove bad always been whether toe killing /
vas done by the party accused. "The de- /
easrd IN this case" said the speaker, "waS /
lshered into eternity by the hands OF
ne prisoner. which he does not deny.
And 1 say then, gentlemen OF the }
urv, the point which embarrasSes
most juries IL not here disputed" Mr..
3 =
nd Thomas ]. Clayerius cases. and said that
n each the corpus deiicii was the most dir
MI point to establish. lie insisted that the
question: for the jury 70 decide was why God.
~ shot Glass ri all, and why he shot him la
he back when be was running away from
i'm. lie said the Instructions Of The Court
overed The plea OF seli.deieuce and OF M
lniiy.
lie continued: The prisoner AYERS that the
hair VISA raised when be fred the first shot.
;en,lemcn, could the prisoner, IN this post
ion. shoot the deceased in the back! This
var DOT the fatal slot.
when and where Mr.. GOdsey got that pis-
a. the speaker said, was question nobody
0uid answer but the prisoner.
The witnesses testified that The bruise on
risonel's arm was not discovered until The
ext day. II the igres OF our courts acquit
len on these pretences our eity fail will soon
r ied with tbs most muiilased set OF peo-
Ne the country ever beheld. The wound
n the prisoners head showed that the chair
I'd strike him and did notffaeture his skull,
: predicted by Or. Wheat.
Mr.. Wsddill called attention to the Taet
bet the witnesses Jones, Nowlan, end
alley all agreed that the deceased said 10