The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1892-10-15
THE FUroH CASE REVERSED.
Some New Points Brought Out by
the Supreme Court.

Some New Points Brought Out Dy
the Supreme Court.
The supreme court, as announced 10 the
MORNING News. reversed the decision OF
Judge Gamble of the Tattnan superior
court in the Futch murder case. The case
was tried last spring aud was a remarkable
the murder of Alfred kennedy
and was sentenced TO hang. An appeal for
9 new trial secured Q stay Of the execution.
The new trial Was denied by the superior
court and the supreme court was appealed
to and granted It. Futch will now have
another chance 70 escape the death peualty.
The supreme courts decision in the case
| lie an interesting one. It says that under
the assignment that the verdict was con
| trary to law and the evidence, il may be
insisted that the venue was not sufficiently
proved.
The venue IN q criminal case must be
proved beyond a reasonable doubt, like any
other fact. The proof in this case was that
the homicide was committed at a point
twenty five or thirty steps distant from
certain house, and that the house was in
the county laid in the indictment Under
the ruling In court In a former case the
venue was not sufficiently proved, 10 not
atirmatively appearing that the place OF
the homicide was within the jurisdiction OF
the court.
On trial for murder, where the defense
| is that the homicide was justifable, and
where neither the evidence nor the state
ment would, in any view OF the case, war
rsnt o verdict ef manslaughter, the court
did not err in refusing TO give, in charge TO
the jury, the sections Of the penal code on
the subject OF manslaughter; certainly so in
the absence OF a proper request to charge.
A request which embraces all the penal
code on the subject of msnsiaughter Is too
broad
Where a witness testifies that on the night
OF the homicide he was in a house about
twenty-five or thirty steps distant from the
point where the deceased was shot, and that
he heard the report Of gun and cries of
distress, IL is not RllO wable for him to testify
further than within q minute after the
shooting, another person ran into the house
and whispered to him that there was moth
ing 10 hurt him, that the accused had shot
the deceased. The whispering indicated
reconciliation rather than spontaneous ex.
clematton, there being apparently nothing
to call for lowering Of the voice ii the
speaker was prompted by a natural impulse
only. This excludes it from sdmissibility
as part OF res gestse.
Contradictory statements Of a witness
previously made by him as to matters NOT
relevant to his testimony aud to the case
are inadmissible to discredit him. A wit
ness having testified that be was not present
at the homicide and knew nothing about it
until after ward informed, is not subject to
be discredited by proof CT his declarations
made after this Information was acquired,
and tending to show that he had appre-
aended and given warning Of such and such
consequences IL certain witness was dealt
with in a certain manner.
Construed in connection with other por-
tions OF the charge, an instruction that IL
the jury believed the killing was doue by
the accused to prevent the debauching OF
his attianced vito, and that she was vir-
tuous woman, 1t was for them TO say
whether this stood upon the same footing of
reason and justice as other instances
enumerated, would not be understood as
making his justification depend upon her
actual virtue, the court charging further:
"If you find that she was a debauched wo-
man and the defendant did not know it,
then her lewdness could not be taken in &C
count gainst him. and also charging that
II he believed her TO be pure aud did not
know anything TO the contrary, It would be
for the jury to say whether 1t was one OF
those instances enumerated. Whether the
charge was not more favorable to the &C.
cused than the law entitled him TO ia not
for decision on this writ of error
The court having charged that hus-
band would be justified in killing another
to prevent the debauching Of his wife, it
was not error against the accused 10 charge
ehns A. VIC 0OACl0dhb hltlGu buo OSCCb5eQ 10
prevent the debauching Of his affianced
wife, it was for the jury to say whether
this would be upon the same footing OF rea-
son aud justice as the killing by husband
to prevent the debauching Of his wife.
It was not error to charge the jury: "If
you hud from the evidences In this case that
at the time of the killing, Mary Jane De-
Losoh was in place of safety and was In
no danger at that time of being deoauched
by the deceased. then the killing Of the de-
ceased by the defendant for that reason
would not be justi6Rble."
II the accused admits the killing with a
deadly weapon, but adds an explanation
which might negative malice, no presump-
ton that the homicide was murder would
arise In such admission; but il no explana-
ton were added to reduce the grada of the
homicide, that presumption would arise.
Where of three persons charged with the
| same otfense one is on trial, il Is competent
on cross-examinstion for the states counsel
to ask witness as to his friendly relations
| with the other two and whether he has not
lent money to another person, the father OF
one Of these two and the grandfather of the
other, to aid In the defense of the person
who Is on trial.