The News-Herald. [volume] (Hillsboro, Highland Co., Ohio) 1886-1973, 1891-04-09

say such force al was necessary to, ac-
complish' bis arrest and to repel the
ferce used by Elliott, but no more. Arg
force used by him in excess Of these
needs was unlawful. He had no lawful
right to Intentionally shoot Elliott for
the purpose of accomplishing the arrest
because Elliott had only committed q
misdemeanor or misdemeanors.
What concerns you most is this. IT
you find from the evidence that Lewis,
while in the line of his duty attempted
to arrest Elliott, that Elliott was killed
by pure accident; that is to say that
Lewis neither aimed nor pointed the
revolver at Elliott, but that while it was
in the hands of both of them, without
any intention on his part, the muzze of
the revolver was turned towards Elliott,
and without any voluntary act or gross
carelessness or recklessness on his part
it was discharged and Elliott thereby
killed, then it was an accident and no
crime was committed. In that case he
has made out q complete defense; he is
not responsible for any crime and you
should acquit him.
But if, Notwithstanding Lewis had the
right to arrest Elliott, and, ,notwithstand-
ing the act engaged in arresting him,
you should find from the evidence, to
the exclusion Of every reasonable doubt,
that the killingof Elliott was the natural
result Of gross carelessness or reckless.
ness by Lewis in the use of the revolver |;
if he Intentionally aimed or pointed the
revolver at Elliott; If by his voluntary
act the revolver was discharged and
Elliott was killed, Lewis was guilty, and
you should so find, of manslaughter, un-
less you find it was done in self defense.
Since assault and assault and battery
are included in the charge in the indict-
ment, it will be necessary to define
them. An assault is an intended attempt,
by violence, to do bodily injury to
another. A battery is an injury, how
ever trifling, actually done to the person
OF another in an angry, revengeful, rude
or insolent manner.
A large number OF witnesses testified
to the prior good character and unbiem.
ished reputation of Lewis for peaceable-
ness, kind.heartedness, humanity and
obedience to the law. 1t is necessary
that l should instruct you what purpose
this testimony is to subserve and how
you are to apply It. You will weigh it
In his favor for what you deem it worth.
1t may render that doubtful which
would otherwise be clear, If the case
is close it should turn the scales in his
favor. Its reasonable effect is to create
q presumption that Lewis was not likely
to have committed either of the crimes
named. The force of the presumption
depends upon the strength Of the evi.
dence offered by the State to produce
conviction of the truth of the charge
against him. II the evidence establish.
n a nh q pYa n NJ nnk, -
upon principles of good sense and reason
to be overcome BY The fact Of good char.
acter and reputation, that prior good
character and reputation will be ,of no
avail. Good character and reputation
are no excuse for the commission of q
crime; but like all other facts, they are
facts which are to be weighed and esti.
mated by you in ascertaining the truth
as to whether he was guilty OF innocent.
If, upon the consideration Of all the eyi.
dence, II has been proved in your iudg-
ment beyond Q reasonable doubt that
Lewis is guilty Of either Of the crimes
mentioned it ID your duty to convict,
notwithstanding his previous good char.
acters and reputation.
In every criminal case, gentlemen Of
the i1t3. the defendant is presumed to
be innocent until he is proven guilty
beyond . reasonable doubt. The law
imputes innocence rather than wrong.
This isithe A B @ Of common life a. we'll
as of our criminal, law. That presump-
ton stands by Lewis in this case through
the trial to its close until it was over
come by affirmative proof. II the evi-
dence OF guilt or innocence is 80 evenly
balanced as to cause you to have q rea-
sonable doubt oi it you must acquit
him. The State was bound to prove the
truth of every fact asserted, in point of
law, to constitute the crime for which
he is sought to be convicted. Every
one Of you must be satisfied, beyond q
reasonable doubt, that Lewis is guilty
before you can convict him of any Of
the offences charged. II you can recon-
cile the evidence with any hypothesis of
innocence, it is your duty to acquit.
This leads to b definition OF reasonable
doubt. What is reasonable doubtf It
does not mean that you must be abso.
lutely certain Of guilt before. you can
convict; moral certainty is only neces-
sary. You cannot convict him Of any
offence On q mere preponderance Of the
evidence. If the evidence only proves
probability that he 10 guilty, you must
not convict him. Tho term, reasonable
doubt, as used in the criminal law, is an
honest substantial misgiving generated
inthe mind Of the juror by the insuffic-
iency of the evidence il the insuf1c-
iency or the uncertainty of the evidence
fails to convince your Judgment and con.
vince and satisfy your candid reason a.
to the guilt OF Lewis. you have reason.
able doubt.
If the whole evidence, when carefully
examined, weighed and compared, pro-
duces in your minds Q settled conviction
and belief Of Lewis guilt, such convict
ion ~ you would be willing to oct upon
in matters Of great Importance, relating
TO your own affairs. you are free from
any reasonable doubt and should return
q verdict in conformity with that belief.
II, however, the proof leaves your minds
in such . state of uncertainty on the
question Of guilt or innocence q would
deter you from acting, or make you even
hesitate TO act, in Important matters
which concern yourselves, such . state
of mental uncertainty and indecision
would constitute Q reasonable doubt,
and IN that caao Won ahnu1d f3ud for; the