The Russellville Democrat., 1889-04-18

the jury the following instructions, in
writing:
/. The Court instructs the Jury that one,
who in possession OF sound mind, commits a
criminal onense under the impulse of passion
or revenge, which may Temporarily dethrone
his reason or for the time being control his
will cannot be shielded from the consequences
OF tiIc act by plea OF insanity.
Q. That insanity will only excuse the com
mission OF a crimin~i set, when it IS made to
appear afirmatively by evidence fairly pre-
ponderating, that the person comih.s.n@ 1T Is
insane.
3. The Court instructs the Jury that the
law presumes every man to be sane until the
contrary is shown: and when insanity IS set
M as a defc nse by a person accused OF crlme,
in order that the defense may aVal, the jury
ought to believe from the evidence that, at
the time of the commission of the alleged
crime, the mind of the accused was so far af-
fected with insanity as to render him ineapa-
bic OF distinguishing between right and ma
is charged; or IL he was conscious OF the act
he was doing and knew its consequences, that
he was, in consequence or ms lhsanlty,
wrought up to frenzy which rendered him
incapable to control his actions or direct his
movements.
4. When insanity is set up as a defense Of
crime the testimony must, by evidence tslrly
preponderatng, prove that, at the time of
the act, the defendant was iaboring under
such defect of reason from disease OF the
mind as not to know the nature of the act
he was doing, or il he did know it, that he
was ignorant that he was doing wrong.
s. The killing being proved it devolved upon
the accused to prove, by testimony ialrly pre-
pc nderating, that ne was In such cohul'lon
TO know the consequence of his act, and not Ia
know right from wrong, unless the testimony
on the part of the state SHOWS that ne was IN
such condition.
G. If YOU find from the evidence, that defend
ant was armed and IN wait !or deceased, and
that deceased was approaching deiendants
prem ises for the purpose of entrance thereon,
or TO communicates with defendants wife,
and that defendant shot deceased at time
when deceased was not endeayoring to take
defendants life, or to do him 4 great bodily
injury, the killing was not iustiGable. al
though you may further believe that deceased
was In the habit OF having criminal inter
course with defendants wife.
T. You are the sole judges OF the credlbilitY
OF the witnesses and the weight OF the testi-
mony, and in determining the weight 10 be
given to the testimony Of any given witness.
information, his manner Of testifying, aud the
interest, il any, OF such witness in the result
OF the controversy, ami their relation to de-
PENDANT, II any
g. Some Of tho witnesses have deposed that
deceased, a short time before his death, made
threats against the life OF the de
PENDANT. You are instructed that previous
threats or acts OF hostility OF the deceased
toward the defendant, however violent they
may have been, were not Of themselves, to
Justify defe ndant in staying deceased To eN-
cuse MIN, or justify him, he must have acted
und or the honest belief that it was necessary
at the time to take the life OF deceased in order
to save his own; and it must appear that there
was reasonable cause to excite this apprehen-
sion on hIs part; so that II you ind that the
deceased, az the time he was killed, did moth
ing to excite in the mind OF defendant the fear
that diseased was about to execute his
threats, then the threats Of deceased, what
ever you may find them TO have been, are un-
awaiting, and should not be considered bJ you.
But ifthe evidence leaves you in doubt as to
what the acts Of deceased were at the time, or
immed lately before the killing, you may CON
slider the threats Of deceased in connection
with the other evidence in determining
who was probably tho aggressor. The
Jury is instructed that no mere threats made
By deceased before the killing, IL they were
unacoompanied at the time of the killing with
any attempt TO carry them into execution are
sufficient 20 Justify the kl(ing or reduce 1t TO a
lowert degree OF homicide than murder
and IL they md that defendant shot and killed
deceased because Of such threats aud because
of the intimacy existing between deceased and
defendants wife. aud because defendant
thought such threats, and the relation exist
ing between his wife ana deceased, would JUS
tify him in killing deceased, and that when he
shot and killed hias he was in no fear of i'm.
mediate danger, he Is guilty OF murder, and If
this was the result OF deliberate purpose fixed
in his mind 70 XIII, it was murder IN the Grst
degree.
The Court then instructed the jury
orally, as follows:
/. The defendant, G. w. Forehand, is
charged In the Indictment with the crime Of
murder ia the 1rst degree.
Murder Is the unlawful killing Of human
be ing, aVainat the peace Of tho state with
malice aforethought either express OF im-
piled.
further than il may show the disposition. or
| the intent Win which the act was commifteI.
| Express malice is that deliberate Intention
! OF mind unlawfnlly 70 take away the life Of =