Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1891-05-27
[N)VENER.
Continued from Sirth Page. !
THE JURY FAILS TO AGREE.
The Instructions to the Jury Read by
Col. Arnett and Prosecuting ATTORNEY
Howard

ODoQeu ldSG HlSHU, GuC SiO"N !" HiNH
stood in the corridor surged in, and soor
all the seats were occupied. The space
inside the railing was filled with ladies
who appeared to take an intense Interest
in the proceedings. When the time fol
opening Court arrived, the crowd wa:
fully as large as at any time during the
trial. even during the arguments OF
counsel, despite the fact that it was moi
generally known that there was TO DC
an evening session. 1t was precisely
eight o'clock when Judge Campbell APP
peared, and Court was declared open.
Judge Campbell addressed the jury
telling them that if they knew any fact:
in this case they would please disclose
them before the instructions were de-
livered. There being nc response, Col
Arnett began reading the instructions
for the defense, as follows:
7 The Jury are instructed that in felony
cases they are the judges of the law ano
the evidence.
Ii. The Jury arc instructed that 1t is the
duty of the State TO prove the guilt OF the
defendant beyond ali reasonable doubt, and
if the Jury have any such doubt as to the
defendants guilt they will lind him not
guilty.
III. If the Jury believe from the evidence
that the defendant, without fault himself,
while walking along the street, was as
sailed with insulting words, with threats
of death accompanied by hostile demon
stration by DR.. Baird-the deceased-un-
der such circumstances as to furnish rea-
sonable ground for experimenting design
to take away his life or do him some great
bodily harm, and there was reasonable
ground for believing the danger imminent,
that such design would be accomplished,
and that DR.. Garrison, the defendant, mad
reasonable ground TO believe ana ala De-
lieye such danger to be imminent, then GU
are instructed that DR.. Garrison, the de-
PENDANT. had the right TO act upon such APP
nearances. and, without retreating, kill
DR. Baird. the deceased, if he had reason
able grounds to believe and did believe that
such killing was necessary in order to
avoid the apparent danger. The killing,
under such circumstances, is eXcusable,
although it may afterwards turn out that
the appearances were false, and that there
was. in fact, neither design to do him some
serious injury, nor danger that it would be
done. Of all this the jury must judge from
all the evidence and circumstances OF the
case.
". In such case as to the imminency of
the danger which threatened the defend
ant. and the necessity Of the killing IN the
first instance, he is the Judge. He acts at
his peril, as the jury must pass upon his
action in the premises, viewing SAID actions
from the defendants standpoint at the time
of the killing; and if the jury believe from
all the facts and circumstances in the case
that the prisoner, DR.. Garrison, had rea-
sonable grounds to believe, and did believe,
the danger imminent, and that the killing
was necessary to preserve his own life, or
to protect him from great bodily harm, he
is excusable for using deadly weapon in
his defense; otherwise he is not.
V. If the jury believe from the evidence
that DR.. Garrison-the defendant-was,
on the It'll day of March, 1891, Without
fault on his part, attacked by the deceased
with insulting words, threats and hostile
demonstrations in such manner and under
such circumstances as to furnish reason
able grounds for experimenting design TO
take his life or Go him some great bodily
harm. and there were reasonable grounds
for believing the danger Imminent, that
such design would be accomplished, and
that DR.. Garrison had reasonable ground
10 believe and did believe such danger
was imminent, then DR.. Garrison was not
bound TO retreat He had & right TO act
upon such appearances and to kill DR..
Baird if he had reasonable grounds 10 be-
ieve and did believe that such killing was
necessary in order 10 avoid the apparent
danger
VI. The Court instructs the jury that the
law presumeS every person charged with
crime to be innocent, and unless the jury
are satisfied beyond all reasonable DOUBT OF
the guilt of DR.. Garrison they will find him
not guilty.
criminal cases neither preponderance of
evidence. nor any weight Of preponderant
evidence is sufficient 10 Justify verdict
against the defendant, unless it generate
fnU belief of his guilt TO the exclusion of
all reasonable doubt. And ii the jury after
considering all the evidence as proved on
both sides, and all the circumstances as
shown in evidence have any such doubt Of
the defendants guilt, they will find the
defendant not guilty.
VIII The jury are instructed that While
il is true that previous threats and acts OF
hostility will not justify person In seek
ing and Staying his adversary, yet it IS
their duty to consider such previous threats
and acts of hostility in connection with
similar threats and acts Of hostility, II any.
at the time of the killing of the defendant
together with all the other circumstances
of the case; for it is the duty OF each juror,
in determining whether or not the defend
ant was eXcusable, TO put htmSeU IN the
plgce of the defendant, so that he may be able
m ascertain whether the defendant was
acting under an honest belief that 1t was
necessary at the time to take the life OF the
deceased in order to save his own, and
whether there was reasonable cause to eX
cite this apprehension.
TX. But the jury are instructed furtner
that if in their opinion, there is sub
stantial conflict of the evidence or clrcum-
stances as TO whether the killing was done
other evidence preponderate in favor OF
self-defense, orr if the evidence is equally
balanced as to the killing being done in
self-defense, the jury ought not 10 convict
of either murder or manslaughter.
Y. The Jury are instructed that the
finding of an indictment by the grand jury
is not to DC considered by them as any evil
dence of the defendants guilt, and that
unless they believe from the evidence before
thembeyond all reasonable doubt that he is
guilty, they will acqult him.
XI. The Court instructs the jury that
the law presumes the defendant innocent OF
the offence charged in the indictment and
of all lesser offences included therein until
his guilt is proven by the evidence IN this
case, bevond all reasonable doubt; and this
presumption of innocence is not a mere
form, to be disregarded by the jury at
pleasure; but it is an essential, substantial
part of the law of the land, and binding on
the Jury in this case; and it is the duty of
the jury to give the defendant in this case
the full benefit of this presumption and to
acuuit him unless they feel compelled to
find him guilty of the offence charged in
the indictment or some lesser offence in
Guided therein, by the law and the evidence