Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1891-05-23

by any chance he would have been
badly trampled in the mad charge OF
those behind him down the aisle. In
three minutes the Court room was con-
veniently full, and in ten minutes it
was damned. At the upper corridor
windows ladies were seated, and many
vacant seats.
MR.. HOWARD RESUMES.
Just as the clock struck two Mr..
Howard resumed his argument by ad-
verting again to the duty of jurors I'M
der the law and under their oaths, and
from this he took up the law of hemi-
eide in its three branches-justifiable,
excusable and felonious-and said the
present case was neither of the two
former, because it was an unlawful kill
ing, and warned the jury to at once
despatch from their minds all thought
of justifiable homicide, and then went
on to speak of the degrees Of unlawful
homicide-murder in the first degree,
murder in the second degree, and volun-
tary and involuntary manslaughter, and
be defined each with care, and dwelt
with particularly upon the fact that:
"Passion induced by words alone will
not Justify murder; no words however
abusive-no words however insultlng-no
thought which can be uttered by human
lips-can lawfully be paliation for MUIR
der 1t is true you might be asked what
YOU would do under these circumstances
but that will not decide this case. The
case at bar is not to be decided by popular
law, but by the written law of the land,
that | and you have alike sworn to sup
port"
Mr.. Howard quoted from the Code de-
fining murder in the first degree, and
after a careful comment and eXplana-
ton of the Statute, said the case against
the defendant was that he was guilty OF
a deliberate, wilful and premeditated
murder, and followed that by saying
that even counsel for the defense would
not say it was not wilful; the only dis
pute was whether it was deliberate, pre-
meditated and malicious, and as to
malice. that need not be proven in any
cases of murder, and deliberation and
generalization did not have to
he proven when deadly weapon was
used-there was such thing in law as
presumption in such matters. He SAID
the popular definition OF generalization
was not the legal one; man did not
have to think over the idea of murder
for a day, or week, or month. but on
the contrary, man might conceive the
malice. come TO the determination to
kill and fire the fatal shot all in single
moment of time, and DR.. Garrison had
annie time to do that between the time
he turned around to face DR.. Baird, on
Eleventh street, and the actual firing oil
the shots. Mr.. Howard quoted from
numerous authorities in support OF
his position on generalization and delib-
Grafton. and read from decisions to show
that the necessity was upon the pris-
oner to prove extenuating circum-
stances.
He then passed to what he said was
the real point in the case-was the kill
ing in self-defense, and said there NUT
nave been in the mind Of the prisoner
the idea that he was in imminent peril
whether that peril actually existed or
not. The jury must not believe that
DIR. Garrison thought DIR. Baird would
kill him some time, but that
the killing must have been actually
necessary at the moment. Neither
would fear arising from cowardice
suffice. II DR.. Garrison turned around.
and saw that DR.. Baird was unarmed:
that his coat was bttoned up that he
could have gone into house and avoid
ed him, or gone into the alley, or crossed
the street, or gone down Main street
when he first saw him, self-defense
would not suffice as an excuse. He read
from the decision in the King case
that mere threat to Kill
on sight was not justification,
and called attention to the point that
that was a stronger case than the one
before the jury, for DR.. Baird had not
threatened that wayne had seen DIR.
Garrison almost every day. The main
point was, under what apprehension
was the killing justified, and answered
that an actual overt act was absolutely
necessary. He read from authorities in
several States, upon the points
discussed, and said the univer-
sal rule was that the killing
ment be necessary and at time when
there was some overt hostile act. He
had cot sought,to bring other authorl-
ties; the library was full OF them-all to
the same effect. At the time OF the
killing, was Dr. Baird committing any
act. making it necessary for DR.. Garri-
son to kill him. The jury must ask
themselves what act DR.. Baird did,
What weapon he drew, what ad