The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-05-24
GONE TO THE JURY.
The Taylor Starks Murder Case
Closed at Last.
JUDGE HuMEs' INSTRUCTIONS.
Murder, MansIaughter and seIf-Defenss
Explained In the Charge TO the
Jury-Ths Biotter.

The TAYLOR starks murder case went to
the iurv at s o'clock yesterday, after
tedious trial of nine days duration, and
the Jury has not yet been able to agree
upon verdict.
4. T. Ronald devoted the entire forenoon
10 an exhaustive and forcible argument
for the defense, going ov the entire case
and pointing out to the Jury the elements
Of seIf-defense for which he contended.
He reminded them of Bloomstran's
threats, and of his violent temper and the
reasons Starks had for experimenting
great danger on the afternoon of March 30,
when he saw Nels Bioomstran, with pistol
IN hand and murder in his heart, pursu-
ing him. He claimed that Bloomstran
fred first, and Starks only drew his pistol
and fired when his life depended upon
prompt action, and he was forced TO shoot
In self-defense.
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Mcbride
followed. and spoke until nearly 5 o'clock,
closing the case for the prosecution. He
made an earnest appeal to the jury for con-
viction of Taylor starks, whom he de-
nounced as a red-handed murderer. He
insisted that Starks went to Nels Bloom
UJT8n y nOQoS vi al 0tAfAWtAA oAatt
expecting trouble and armed for the pur-
pose Of resorting to violence. He claimed
that Starks had deliberately pfemeditated
killing Bloomstran If bis purposes were
thwarted. and that he not only was the
aggressor in the fatal ARRAY, but that he
shot Bloomstran in the back. He claimed
that in going in pursuit of Starks and his
daughter, Nels Bloomstran was only doing
what any father would have right TO do;
that he had right to control his daughter
and rescue her from the man who sought
10 take her against her parents wishes.
In charging the jury Judge Humes first
defined and explained the different degrees
Of murder and the ingredients that so to
make case of murder or manslaughter.
Then he said: ITO justify you in finding
the defendant guilty of murder in the hrst
degree, you must believe from the evidence
that he had formed deliberate intent to
kill the deceased and that the deed was
done deliberately. intentionally and
maliciously. and that II was done in this
manner beyond reasonable doubt.
"The law assumes that every man in
tends the natural, necessary and probable
consequences of his own act, and while the
law requires killing to be wilful in order
10 make 1t murder, it does not require any
lenght OF Internationally q moment is
sufficient.
81 instruct You that malice is not con-
fined to ill-wi!i and hatred alone, hut may
be implied from any acts arising from
malignant purpose or meanness of heart.
II you believe that the defendant killed
the deceased as charged, You must find
what degree of murder or manslaughter
be Is guilty of, and so specify in your
verdict.
''If person believes his life is in dam
ger, and acts upon that belief, he is justi-
fed in taking life if necessary. and it will
be self-defense, although no real danger
may have existed; but in order that per-
son may be excused for the taking of hu-
man life the danger must be immanent
and apparent. In this case If Bloomstran
led Starks to believe by his actions that
he intended to kill him or do him great
bodily injury. and il he made threats,
and Starks believed he was about to put
those threats into execution, he could act
upon his belief. Actual danger was not
necessary. If danger is apprehended the
defendant can use any means in his
power and can even kill, il necessary, in
order TO save himself.
"lf you are doubtful as to which party
began the ARRAY you must consider all of
the threats and other circumstances, as
tending TO show the feelings of the defend
ant and what weighed upon his mind.
The character of the deceased is also to be
considered, and II he was known by de-
PENDANT TO have been a man of violent
temper and dangerous when in anger, ii
may be considered as influencing the con-
duct of the defendant
'The deceased. as the father of Chestie
Bloomstran, would havo right to require
her to remain at home if he saw fit, but
would not have right to pursue her with
deadly weapon when she was in no I'M
lawful pursuit, and the defendant had a
right TO go to Bloomstran's house and re-
quest of Nels Bloomstran the hand of his
daughter in marriage, or make any other
reasonable request. and Bloomstran would
not be justified on that account in pursu-
Ing him with deadly weapon. If Starks
was there merely as tresrasser it was not
sufficient to justify deadly assault upon
him.
"If defendant knew that to ask for
Boomstran's daughter would bring on a
conflict, and knowing this he went there
and brought on the conflict and killed
Bloomstran, then he could not set up the
plea of self-defense. But you cannot con-
Wet on mere suspicion, but must be con-
WINGED beyond o reasonable doubt of the
guilt of the defendant, and the prosecu-
ton must make out every material allega-
ton OF the charge.
1T is your solemn duty under your
oaths TO judge Of what the facts are from
the testimony, and TO apply these facts to
the law as given you by the court. You
must not act from your own knowledge or
outside information, but from the state
menis of the witnesses"
Judge Humes then explained to the
jury how to weigh the facts and arrive at a
verdict, and instructed them that if they
found Starks guilty they must state
whether il is murder in the first or second
degree or manslaughter.
When the jury went out defendants
counsel excepted 10 a number of Judge
Humes' instructions. and 10 his failure 10
give other instructions which they had Of
fered.
Judge Humes directed the bailitf who
has charge of the jury to notify him in the
event of the jury arriving at a verdict. and
be will receive the verdict and discharge
the jury.