Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-09-11

his blow most effective, was, within five
seconds, and probably within three sec.
onds, to strike with his clenched fist
Field, 70 years old. sitting down, with
his side and back to his assailant, taken
by surprise, and unable to make the
least resistance before receiving the blow.
What would have been the result Of
even one blow if Terry and Field had
been left wholly to themselves? The
side of the neck, back of the ear, is one
of the most vital parts of the human |
body, and to blow with any hard sub |
stance, like the fist, is probably more
vulnerable than any other part. The |
skull adjoining it at the base of the brain |
and at the temples is nearly as liable to |
fatal result from blow. II Terry had |
not been stopped by Neagle that blow
would have been delivered within three
or five seconds on one of these three
vital places, and would have been fol-
lowed up by such additional violence to
Fields PROSTATE body as Terry's deep
seated hate, infamed by the excitement
of the present encounter, would have in
cited him to inf1ict. OF the striking of
that one blow there is no question; the
rest is probable. 1t is impossible, of
course, to determine the actual result of
the blow, because the blow was never
struck and the law, therefore, in order
to determine whether or not felony was
attempted, seeks to ascertain only what
would have been the probable result. No
impsfSial p ron can resist the conviction
that the probable effect mot the certain,
inevitable effect, for that is not what the
law inquiries, but the probable effect of
that stunning fist-blow on that seventy
three-year mans neck or head would
have caused his instant or ultimate
death. In either case felony would
have been committed. The law there
fore made it the legal duty of Nesgle,
and of every other citizen standing by,
to prevent, so far as within his power,
the blow and the felony. That being
Citizen Neagle's duty, he did it, and is
to be commended therefor. unless the
means he employed were not, under the
circumstances, warranted by the law.
Let us see. 1t was his duty to make his
resistance to Terry effectual to prevent
the felony. The case was urgent. What
over he did must be done within the
five seconds at the farthest, before the
blow would be delivered. There were
only two courses that he could take that
would be effective to prevent the felony
on Field. One was to spring in between
Terry and Field. and, by graphing in
with Terry, himself receive Whatever in.
vent the blow from being struck. That
is, the only question for Neagle to decide
then and there instantly was who
Field, himself or Terry should receive
the violence necessary to stop the fracas
which Terry had begun and was Their
continuing. The law forbade him as 8
good citizen to allow it to be inflicted OF
Field, If he could by any means what
ever prevent it. Was it his legal duty
to subject himself to the unknown
!, amount of injury he would receive in 6
fight with that infuriated man, Terry ?
OF course the law does not reouir,
of its unoffending citizens any such sac
rifce in order to restore the peace in {
: fracas of which they happen to be simpl,
spectators. OF those present, the Law
selects as the proper recipient of the vic
lence necessary to stop violence, not tn
: innocent spectators, not the innocen
party attacked, but the guilty person
, who begins or threatens violence-in
this case the man Terry, who had al
, ready done some violence and was in
J stantly threatening more and NOR,
deadly. On him the only violence thai
= could be effectually brought to bea
within that precious five seconds, an(
yet save the two innocent parties, wal
the instantaneous deadly weapon. Nea
gle took the only course he could to make
his resistance to Terry's violence, as thu
law requires, efectual to stop it. Any
thing short of disabling Terry would no
1 have prevented his violence, and eithe
Field or Neagle would have been the sui
ferer, the innocent instead of the guilty
The law, therefore, holds Neagle no
only blameless, but to be commended q
having done the State a service in pre-
venting the commission OF crime.
, In what have said above 1 have con
J sidered Neagle's action only as it was af
fected by what took place in the dining
room, at Lathrop, for the reason that tina
/. was sufficient for his vindication. Blu
D the history of Terry's relations will
y Field prior to that meeting, his intene,
hatred OF Field and the causes of it, tn,
0 deadly threats he had made agains
e Field to Franks, to Woolsey, to Williams
to Wigginton and to others, added to tn
g fact that Terry was always armed with
knife and bore the character of fighte
8 to kill, in such encounters as he ha,
Just purposely begun, all of which wa
9 known to Neagle, gave such Significance
to Terry's attack on Field, and 81
o largely increased the probability of
y felonious result that Neagle would hav,
been warranted in shooting Terry t.
: death. even if the apparent peril of Fielt
had been far less deadly than it was
;, For Neagle, in deciding whether felony
O was attempted, and if there was, thu
o means he would take to prevent it, nigh
rightfully take into account all the fact
q and circumstances that would influenc,
i Field himself in repelling the attack
!, Field would not have been bound, AM
Neagle was not bound to regard thi
y as a chance falling out of an ordinary
character. He knew better, and had nj
}. right to ignore Terry's fixed purpose
armed preparation and probable presen
ability to carry his deadly purpose int
instant effect. 1t would have been tn,
d. heighth of folly for Field not to conside,
these things, if he had to decide wha
was necessary to defend himself success
fully. The same was equally true O
q Neagle in making his decision.
9 Both Field and Neagle were Fedora
officers, the attack on Field was on &C
count Of his official action, and Neagle
in his official capacity, as he claims. Orc
tected him. Whether these facts GUS
the State courts and give the Fedora
, courts exclusive naturalization, ~ tho m CO