Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1888-08-02
Judge Keith's Instructions.

IDe following are jugs heltn lnslruC
tons to the jury in the trial of Edwin Bar
bour at Culpeper. on the charge of murder
ing Ellis B. Williams:
"Tf the Jury believe from the evidence
that on the morning of the 1st of March the
defendant was In his Office in the lawful
himself in lawful and peaceable manner,
and was then and there violently assaulted
BY the deceased, who had entered his Office
for that purpose, then said defendant had
the right to repel force by such force as he
believed and had reason to believe was ne
cessary for his own protection from death or
serious bodily harm and if in the exercise
of this right of self-defence his assailant was
killed he was justi6able.
"Ifthe jury shall believe from the evi
dence that the defendant shot the deceased
under reasonable apprehension that his
own life was in danger, or that he was in
danger of serious bodily harm, he was justi-
fed in 30 doing, though such danger was
unreal. The question for the jury in this
case is not whether the taking of the life of
the deceased might have been safely avoid
ed, but whether the defendant, in the cir
cumstances of agitation and peril in which
he was placed, might reasonably have be
lieved and did believe it necessary to use
the defensive action which resulted in the
death of the assailant, in order to save his
own life or avoid serious bodily harm.
"If the jury shall believe from the evil
deuce that the deceased had mazda furious
threats against the defendant, which had
been communicated to him on the morning
of the 1st of March and previous to the
shooting, and that the deceased went to the
Office OF the said defendant fully armed with
pistol or pistols. and with determination
of carrying out his said threats, and declared
to the defendant his purpose of 30 doing in
| manner and under circumstances causing
reasonable apprehension to said defendant
of death or serious bodily harm, then said
defendant was not under the necessity of
waiting for the attack to be begun, or for a
blow 10 be struck before resortiDg to his
| right of self defence.
| Though the jury may believe that the
defendant was In the wrong in the publica.
ton of the articles in the AdUance rejecting
on the father of the deceased, yet the publ
cation of said articles was no justification
whatever for the attack made by the de-
ceased on the said defendant, for no words,
however insulting, and no libel or publica
ton. however aggravating or defamatory,
| can justify an attack or ASSAULT.
The Court instructs the jury that in Or
der to convict the accused of any offence the
burden OF proof is on the Commonwealth
the law presuming every man to be innocent
until he is proved guilty.
1.-The Court instructs the jury that if they
have any reasonable doubt as to any import
ant fact necessary to convict the accused Of
any offence whatever, that they are bound
to give the accused the benefit of the doubt
"The Court instructs the jury that ifupon
the whole evidence in the case there is any
rational hypothesis consistent with the con-
clusion that the homicide was excusable or
nsti6abe, the accused cannot be convicted
of any offence
"The Court instructs the jury that II they
believe the Commonwealth has proved the
killing of the deceased by the prisoner at
the bar, and that such proof on the part OF
| the Commonwealth was unaccompanied by
palllating circumstances, then the presump-
| ton is that such killing was murder in the
second degree. and that the burden is on the
prisoner to reduce the grade of the offence.
"When death ensues upon sudden quar-
rel or ARRAY without malice prepence, the
killing is manslaughter and in order to re.
duce the offence to killing in self defence it
must appear that the accused killed the de-
ceased because of reasonable belief that it
was necessary to take the life of the deceas.
ed in order to preserve his own or to save
himself from great bodily harm.
son charge of murder malice is presum'
ed from the fact OF killing When the kill
ling is proved, and such proof unaccompan.
led by circumstances Equalization, the bur-
den of the disproving malice s thrown upon
the accused. But the paliiatiDg circum-
stances may appear as we'll from the testi-
mony adduced by the Commonwealth. as
that presented by the defendant, and it is
therefore the duty of the jury to consider
the whole evidence, and ifupon such consid
Grafton a rational doubt remains In the
minds of the jury as to the guilt of the &C
cused, it in the duty of the jury to acquit."
-e-e-
Life of Matthew f. Meury.