Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-08-02
.rudpe Ketth's Instructions.

We are obliged to our correspondent VINO
sends Us JodEe KsvrI's Instructions 70 tpe
Jury IN the BARBOUR case. The legal profess
sion will be pleased to sce them
CurrEPgR. VA, July 81, 1881.
10 Che Editor OF tac DHspatch'
In the printed accounts OF the result OF inc
trial OF Edwin Bar bour on the charge oil
numbering Ellis u. Williams frequent men
ton has been made OF Judge Teith's 10.
structlons to the Jury in the case, and II may
be OF interest 10 The public 10 read TIE IN
s,ructions. enclose q copy OF them taken
from the record IN the case, being rs follows:
"If the fury believe FROM the evidence
that on the morning Of the 1st OF mstcn tue
defendant was in his Office In the lawful put-
suig OF his business. and was conducting
himself In a lawful and pcaccabie manner,
ana wras then aud there Violently assaulted
by the deceased, who had entered his once
Tor that purpose, then said defendant hsd
the right 20 Tepcl force by such force MS be
believed and had reason 90 believe was ne
cessaIy for his own protection from DEAN OF
serious bodily harm; and II In the exercise
OF this right Of scf-defence his aSsallant was
killed he was Unstable.
ali the Jury shall believe from the evil
dence that the defendant shot The deceascu
under n reasonable apprehension that iliS
opyn life was in danger, or that he was IN
danger OF serious bodily harm, he was lusli'
fed in 40 doing. though such danger was
unreal. The question for the jury 10 this
ease is not whether the taking OF the lie OF
the deceased might have been safely avoideb'
but whether the defendant, In The clreum-
stances OF agitation aud peril In which ne was
placed, might reasonably have believed qua
did believe Il necessary 10 use the defensive
action which resulted in the death OF Tue as
sailant, in order 10 save his own lie or aFoiG
serious bodily harm.
"If the inrv shall believe from the evil
desce that the deceased had made furious
threats against the defendant, which had
been communicated TO him OH The morning
OF the lat q March aud previous 10 the
shooting. and that the deceased went to The
Office Of the said defendant fully armed with
q pist0I or pistols, and with q determination
OF carving out his said threats, and declared
10 the defendant his purpose OF 80 dong I'D
a manner and under circumstances causing
reasonable apprehension to said defendant
az death or serious bodily harm, then said
defendant was not under the necessity OF
waiting for the attsck to be begun, or Tor a
blow 10 be struck before Icsortlng to MS
right OF seli.deicuce.
Though the jury may believe that The &c
PENDANT was in the wrong in the publication ot
the articles in the AdUaHce rejecting on the
father Of the deceased, yet the publication OF
said articles was no justification wh'teVer
for the attack msde by the deceased on me
said defendant. for no words. however IN
sultipg. and no libel or publication, however
aggrayatIng or deiamatOfy, can !us'") d"
attack or assault.
"The Court tnstructs 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 10 be innocent
until he Is proved guilty.
"The Court nstructs the jury that II they
have any reasonable doubt a. To any lmpor.
taut fact necessary to convict the accused OF
any offence whatever, that they are bound to
give the accused the benefit OF that doubt.
"Thc Court lnstructs the jury that II upon
the whole evidence in the case there Is any
rational hypothesis consistent win the con-
clusion that the homicide was excusaOe or
unsuitable, the accused canu0t be convicted
Of any offence.
" The Court instructs the Jury that il they
believe the Commonwealth has proved tbe
killing OF the deceased by the prisoner % the
bar. and that such proof on the part oil tbt
Commonwealth was unaccompanled 10y pal
II that such killing was murder in the second
degree. and that the burden is on the prison
! er to reduce the grade OF the offence.
.eWhen death ensues upon sudden GUAR
rel or afray without malice prepence, the kill
ing is manslaughter, and in order to reduce
/ the offence TO killing in seli-defence 1t mus
| appear that the sccused KILLED the deceased
! because Of a reasonable belief that IL was lie
cessarv 70 take the life OF the deceased in or
| der TO preserve hts own or TO save himself
| from great bodily harm.
"On a charge of murder malice IL pre-
su,ncd from the fact Of killing. When The
| killing Is proved, snd such proof unsccon
panied by circumstances OF pallidlion, The
| burden Of the disproyiug malice is thrown
unon the accused. But the palliating cir
| cumstances may appear as wellfrom the les
timony adduced by the Commonwealth a
that presented by the defendant, and 1t i
therefore the duty Of the jury to conside
the whole evidence, aud IL upon such consid
Grafton a rational ubtremsinSin the mind
Of the Jury as TO the guilt Of the accused, 1t i
the duty OF the jury TO acquit."