Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1891-04-23


Apsil xssA ysAee uau rseaaaAs.
Q. Z. ossvuns GAslR.
". 8. CnoAxa, Osek.
Z. 7. CAALnfox. Ce1nly At1aeaay.
=. 4. 6aAJ1. 0esnogaa4Ase.
WEDNESDAY,, Apeil asd.
Suite " Foley. The asgumsaoB In thia
case were concluded q l1.A0 and oourt
adjourned until 80 p. II.
In the afternoon he jsdss charged ~
jufy, the following Of vhichis b an absaAsl |.
Tue technical charge aeains1 ths accused
10 that Of mauslanshter. 1hs ssasfal dsA-
nition Of manslaushtsr y Known 10 ~
criminal Law il The unlawful killine of .
human being without malice either express
or implied-if malics ID shown ths killing
/ 10 murder. Manslaughtsr may b either
voluntary or involuntary. II . voluntary
where the killing 10 intentional, - the shcos-
ing. stahbing or otherwise killing psfsou
in the heat Of passion, when there 10 no
time for maiies to operate. II 10 lnvolun-
tary when the killing happens without In
tending IL, and In the pufsuit Of any unlav.
3ul act which 10 not felony, q. ". II any
one throw Q stone at another in play and
happens to kill him 1t would be involuntary
manslsushter. II y deliberately intended
to hit and hurt him. IL would be murder
The killing Of human being. under sufi
cient provocasion 10 called )ussihahls homo
eide. o. il one 10 attacked and In imminent
peril Of his life and il 10 necessary to kill
his asssilAnt to save his own life. Killing
would be justidable and would not subjecs
the person killing to punishment because .
psrson has right to defend himself from
being killed by killing his assailaint, or he
may kill person for the prevention Of any
forcible or atfoeious crime which IL com
pleted would amount to = felony, ard may
repel force by force In defence OF HE
person. property o, hsbitation against any
one whs mAnifestly intcnds. attempts or sn
deavofs, by violence or surprise. 10 commit
. felony such 40 murder, robbery, burglary
and the like. and 10 these cases he 10 not
required to retreat. but he may resist and
even pursue his adversary and, II necessary
to secure hinself from all danger, slAy
him.
The charge in this case 10 that the deft,
james Foley feloniously killed one john
Cronin. Feloniously here means upjus,fl-
ably. without lawful excuse. The fact that
Cronin was killed il not denied. that his
aesth resulted from an encounter
bstween Foley and the deceased 10 not
denied and appears to be fully proven by
the Witnesses on both sides, but the &C.
cused, Foley. says that what he did was
justi6sble in defending himself from .
sudden attack by Cronin. II 10 well settled
law that . man may defend himself where
Cal kas ~eaI kaA
IL attacked BY another who attempts 10
commit or does commit an assault and bat
terry upon him; In case Of An attempt to
strike person when sufficiently near %
that there 10 danger, the person assaulted
may even strike hrst--she Law doesen't re.
quire that he should wait until he 10 struck
before giving blow. But In this defend
ing himself no more force must be used
than is necessary to prevent the threatened
mischief. If more force 10 used thaa is
reasonably necessary and the result 10 the
killing Of the asssilant, although the hrst to
make the attack, lie would be guilty Of
manslaughter before the law will justify or
excuse the Staying Of the assailant where
the killing 10 intentiop,l, the slayer must
show the absolute Necessity or reasonable
ground to believe the necessity for 1t !; that
re could not retreat or that the peril to his
own life was 20 imminent that it could not
be aveIted without killing the assailant.
la case Of 4 mutual combat, when two
men fight by agreement, or one stumps and
the other accepts the challenge, and in
the fight one 10 killed, this would
make the survivor guilty Of mAnslsughter
when he can Prove two things: First, That
before the mo'sal stroke was given he re
fused further combat and retreated 90 far
40 he could with safety and Second, that
the killing Of his adversary WAS necessary to
svoid his own destruction.
The position Of the government seems to
be that Cronin and Foley were engaged 10
= voluntary fight. That they had some
ords together in the saloon. Foley with
drew but returned and s,umped or chsl-
lengsd Cronin to come out. That he came
out and in the fight that then ensued Cronin
was killed, either by blow from Foley or
by fall caused by the blow. II the evi-
dence satisfy You Of this beyond . reason
able doubt then your verdict must be
"guiity" for in such case. when the com
bat IL mutual and one is killed by . blow
from the other or by fall produced by the
blow it is msnslsuehter.
The post on Of the defense 10 that Foley
was suddenly attacked by Cronin and
struck; that Foley did only what was neces
sary to defend himself ard that he 10 not ii
fault IL Cfonin fell from the effect Of his
blow and was killed. II you shall fad
from the evidence that Foley was
thus suddenly and furiously attacked
by Cronin without his (Foiey's) inspiring
or encouraging the attack, and that the
blow which he dealt Cronin WAS necessary
to defend himself under the rule given and
the force used was not greater than VA,
required by the natu.e and circumstances,
Of the attack, then Foley 10 not responsible
for the result.
The jury was out about an hour and re-
turned with verdict Of guilty.
George Houlehan ct al. Of Gardiner and
Geo. Emery Of Hallowell, withdrew theii
pleas Of not guilty to two Indictments fol
violation Of the liquor law and fled de
murreYs.
Edward r. Allen, who pleaded nolo con
| tendfe to charge Of larceny, was allowet
to 60 on probation until the Sep.embs'
| term.
Demurrers having been filed in certsir
cases that were assigned for trial this ~
ternoon the jury was discharged ua'i
| morning and court adjourned.