The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-01-12

Judge Twins Charge to the Ferrand jury Oh
the Law of Self-Defense.

the Law of Self Defense.
The Ferrand murder trial drew very
large crowd to the Criminal Court room
yesterday morning. The morning session
was occupied by General Columns final ar
gument for the defense, In which he made
strong and hopeful effort for the, acquittal
of the defendant, basing much of his appeal
to the jury upon Ferrand's previous good
character. The afternoon session was
opened by the final argument of Prosecutor
Mitchell, followed by Judge Twins charge
to the jury, in which he gave a clear expo
sltion of the law of self-defenSe.
After opening his charge with a review of
the case and the general position before
the Criminal Court of the defendant the
Judge proceeded as follows: 1.-THE defendant
claims that at the time the fatal shot was
fired he was acting In self-defense, and that
the killing of Naples was therefore lustifia-
BILE. The law of self-defense is that the
party assaulted has the right TO repel force
by force, and he need not believe that his
safety requires him to kill his adversary to
give him the right to make use of force for
that purpose. When his life is in danger,
or he is in danger of great bodily harm,>
or from the acts of his assailant he
believes, and has reasonable grounds
TO believe that he is in danger of losing his
life, or receiving great bodily harm from
his adversary, the right to defend himself
from such danger, or apprehended danger.
may be exercised by him. and he may use 1t
to any extent which is reasonably neces-
sary. He need not believe that he can only
defend himself by taking the life of his
assailant. If the death of his assailant re-
suits from the reasonable defense of him
self, he is excusable, whether he intended
that consequence or not or whether he be-
heved such result was necessary or not.
"One, in defending his life or protecting
himself from great bodily harm. has the
right to act upon appearances, and If the
appearances were such as to reasonably
justify one in his situation in believing that
he was in imminent peril, or he was in great
bodily danger, he may kill his assailant.
sueh killing being necessary, or appearing
to him to be necessary, to protect himself
from death, although there may have been,
In fact, no real danger, or great bodily harm.
But the law is that the man who takes an
others life must be himself without
fault, or he cannot 60 acQuit upon the
ground of self-defense. If person vOlun-
tarily and unlawfully enters into, brings on
or prOvokes q conflict by his own unlawful
act, he has no right to take his adversary's
life; but, though he may have thus pro-
vOked the conflict or voluntarily entered
into it. yet if he withdraws from it in good
faith, aud is then pursued, he may then ex-
ercise his right of self-defense, but in such
a case it must appear, in order to establish
excusable homicide in self-defense. that the
accused had retreated as far as the fierce
ness of the assault would permit him. One
| combat must withdraw, or attempt to
withdraw, therefrOm before he can be JUS
titled in using dangerous or deadly
weapon"
The case was given to the jury late in the
| afternoon.