Lewiston teller. [volume] (Lewiston, North Idaho) 1878-1900, 1888-05-17

JUDGE BUCKS CHARGE TO THE
JURY

In the District Court First Judicial Dis
trict, Nez Perez county Territory of
idaho
The Territory Of Idaho against William
h. Campell.
Instructions TO the jury.
| Gentlemen Of the .Jury:
The defendant IS charged with an
assault with a deadly weapon, committed
on III" Goth day of March, 1883, in this
county.
| instruct you at the request Of the
defendant.
LIST. That an assault is defined to be
an unlawful attempt coupled with a
present ability to commit violent injury
on the person Of another
End. The defendant, William l..
Campbell, as the minor son OF W. q.
Campbell had the right in law, in the
absence Of his father, to do whatever f,r
the care and protection of his fathers
property from the injury and trespass Of
others, that the father might or couli
lawfully have done if personally present.
1t An assault may be committed in
various WAYS In the case now on ,ri,i
before you, ii committed at all, it was
d'nn hy presenting IA revolver at ihe
person Of Peter Hagen, in a threatening
manner.
Instruct you, as matter of law, that
it one person approaches another with Il
loaded revolver in bis hand, or even II
the revolver bc not loaded, il to all APP
=. ,.rarances it is loaded aud levels at him
in thr atrnlhg manner or holds it H..
hi, hand ready for i,pme iitate use, aud
by W,ru ur action indicates that he is
about to use it upon the person, h. COIN
mits an assault.
1t i, not necessary that he actually aim
T it at the person, but il he have it in
hand aud is within shooting distance, anti
u the person at whom he levels it, or with
whum is having an altercatiou, has rea
sun to suppose from the appearances OF
the weapon or from the words or actions
al tn person having the revolver in hand
,la, il s loaded and that he intends t,
use it, and the appearances are such as tt
,s excite the fears OF reasonable person
J. that he will use it upon himself, the as
y >aut is complete, even though the weap
u on is not loaded aud it is not lcveed a
n i'm
- The first question then for you to con
- slider, from the evidence before you, is
Did the defendant make an assault upo'
Peter Hagen us set oat in the indictment
and il after II consideration of the cvi
{, dence upon this instru Hi'", you fin
that the defendant did not make tn
) assault, you ought t. find him not guilty
and that will end the case.
II, on the contrary, you find that b
). did make the assault, with deadl
weapon, you ought to 20 further an
consider whether he was justified i
doin. so.
End. Upon this question | instru,
) yu that person is sometimes jus,iiab|
iu making an assault upon another, eve
with a deadly weapon. This involv.
the question as to what force man IN,
{ u,e upoD another in the defence OF h
= property.
Same reference was made 10 cvidtn,
!, to the opening road which it was il
z timated was closed up by wire fcn
r scross il and that Mr.. Peter Hagen We
e to the place OF the alteration for Il
: purpose of opening a highway, | instru
2 you that this indictment does MT char
3 the defendant with resisting a pub
- officer or with resisting road overse
3 in attempting to open highway. t
:. matter OF there being highway invplv
q in This action or Of resistanc. to 70
= ovrrsecr should not be considered by y,
!, To do 50 will only con6na your miu
= and letrac' your attention tn the r
= i>-nc in the .ase. The real question
as to how far one private ci,izen n
use force to protest his properly lr
the aetinn Of another private cii;zn.
- Bird. Upon the question Of the prot
tion Of property, | instruct y", as a M
ever ter uf law, that the int,rteranc, with
ns,. ,,ns' fence Of one person BY another a.ai
II is the will Of ano,hrr, is a simple tr-sp
aud the owner or any one in his brh
is not justified in assaulfing another v
deadly weapan to prevent sim
49,, tr.~pass.
,rer. There are certain offrnses to prnpert,
= ~ prevent, which the owner or any per
Or. in his behalf may use deadly weat
! the OF even go 10 far as to take lite. tt
,r,,0t H 4. II