New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-10-03

MIR. WELLMANS SIfECh
The defendants attorney finished his address at
All O'clock and then Mr. Welman began to speak.
He called attention the facts that the stablemen
who had come up and pulled the defendant away
from his victim were disinterested witnesses, ana
that their testimony corroborated Mr.. Hehriquess
in every particular. Even after he had iorciDiy
been pulled from on top Of the aged man. Ellison
kicked him in the face. The witness steele was Vi
course utterly unworthy OF belief declared the pros
ecuting attorney and Prokasky's story was mani
testify untrue He had declared that he saw Mr.:
Henriques fire the shot and after that h GoSa aab
cred The stablemen who were the first TO reach
the spot. had to run 500 feet after nearing .hu s
Prokasky's statements were on their lace ut'ef'
Mr.. Weman was especially sarcastic when speak
suit Ellison "perjured himself like gentleman"
This not So Had he done So n ne w4u he had
confessed his wrong when he found ne S1u Wk no
The lawyer also contended that the crime Of as
Ellison meant to kill his Victim, and would have
done so had not help arrived Ellison's own story
confessed that u he Struck Mr. Henraues after Mr.
had PMsm as nsSed IN his and
soon afterward the jury went to dinner
THE RECoRDER's CHARGE TO THE JURY.
The charge of Recorder Smyth began AT 'oV
O'clock and lasted nearly two hours lie reviewed
the law in a thorough manner, ana toid the Jui!
the law to the evidence. To those present the
charge seemed a fair review of the case. without
unfavorable comment on either SIDE except concern
ing the perjured testimony which Ellison aomit'eu
having given in the Neame divorce suit. Inc MAIN
points OF the charge were in substance as loho"s'
This defendant. before he can be convicted OF any
crlmo under this indictment. must be convicted beyond
any reasonable doubt Not on imaginary doubt, but the
reasonable doubt which would come to an honest man
after carefully weighing the evidence Inc Dsoe'H
toIney must satisfy you beyond any reasonable oouo'
of tho guilt OF the defendant and II he mas zone 'hs
A. ia vour duty 10 convict without regard whatever
70 the result your verdict upon the deiehua'' Inc
moment juror allows his Judgment to be aneetea py .c
consequences Of his verdict he has Noia'eu ms AN
This man is entitled man is-because the ID"
makes no distinction between and another-,o
the presumption OF innocence. That presumption mus
be overcome by competent evidence In the manner nave
indicated. -.,,,, In
lawful sedefence then you must render Veruict Oh
acouta II the evidence satisfies you that IL was 10.
I'm lawful self.defence. he must be convicted Vi vi" "
the three degrees OF ASSAULT .
Tho pecorder here read the statutes defining the
three degrees of assault. and quoted the decisioh
of the Court of Appeals explaining ana a'hp"is"'s
the language of the Penal Code At this stag Va
the charge a band passed along OUTSIDE anu Wv
noise of the drums, the people eheeiis ~
laughter of the crowd which disturbed inc ~.
corder,s remarks were in strong contrast WV,
Coco of the prisoner and the dignihed
character of the court proceeding |o"''"'''e
the Recorder said in substance
WHAT THE PROSECUTION COMMENDED
II Is commended by the prosecution that the
vos walking along Thrty.anthst. c0nauo'"s -
IN peaceable manner. lie met this o.ic"u'' ~.
without any lawful cause placed his Dooy 's"as
,,.,.nt nut his hand upon his shoulder and dcIaheo
him IN a manner In which he hal no legal rish' 70 w.
Then 10 assaulted him and inflicted "ouhu' y, .o
tremely serious nature. There Is no qucsio s,,.,a
about the Of those wounds 1"eS ar "
To be OF an extremely serious nature ,,,,
The defendants story is that he met the 'o"'.
.,h demanded an explanation from him, That ta' conp
49,. rc,usad IN give IT, and when the deendaht uc"a"u
.. . second time the complainant drew P's'oi quo
s,s.h.rced e. nj the defendant, as the deehnant s
nock The plaintiff tells you that he hrea inc p'sVo "
Tho air 10 attract attention, for the purpose vi $780,
assistance because ne had reason 70 eNpc0' d" -,
-. Gov his expectlne 1t was former threats when
ha alleged the defendant had made OF hostile ehaiae"
Won will remember that the Defendant oehiea "os p'
lively that he made any threa's. 10000, ,.,s A.
OF course, none OF the family fouoies o'' :,
.s., ana the complainant could justify any assault Vi
this kind Furthermore If this defendant d'a nos"
more than place his hand upon the boay oil INC w..
and demand explanation. then the compa"anv :, ,h
,us,isad I'm firing the defendant Al you oo"o " ~
,rs,on thar the complainant discharged TINS weapo"
ct the defendant and inflicted no bodiS INJURY ~
,ntting his weapon in his pocket anu leu " $3.50.
no reason to believe that he intended 70 ie"e" vac s
,h,s defendant would not he JUSTIFIED IN using iorc ~
snca The law does justify the use oil force unless
,hs danger is imminent. The defendant was oou"u
the law Of this State to retreat IL ne couu uo ~ h
placing his life in danger Now eou'a .ho .n 70 hs
,.reaed in safety that pistol was hred ne
,s ha would not be justified according to law In using
force and Violence =, ,...,,c
Remember you must not be influenced os s my
which I NAV ray TO you about the evidence Inc re-
spopsb,uy rests with you to say whether the deehu'
THE QUESTION OF INTENT.
Tho Recorder then deliberately explained the ques-
+ion of intent as defined In the statues anu '"e
Occasions Of the Court Of Appeals. He said geher-
aI,v that q person presumed to intend 'he
necessary and reasonable consequences OF MS acts
He continued:
The prosecution in this case depend upon the hAher
IN which the assault committed and the deciaru.o
Of the defendant himself to establish 'he 'nenV - 'e
evidence Of Mis- Neame Is true, this defendant sara ne
would hiu the complainant. II these declarations are
time and this complainant had died from the effects OF
this assault this defendant might have been cohc'u "
murder In the first or second degree
The Recorder again explained an assault In the
second degree as distinguished from one III tie
first DECREE 1t must be made wilfully, without the
intent to kill. Then he went on:
There can be no question this about the assault
being made wilfuy. lie declares he made IL In se''uc
fence. The question is. was 1t wrongfuIy maze ~
is immaterial whether 1t was made WIN or "i'hou'
xvs.non ~ It inflicted grevous bodily HARM And there
con be no doubt whatever in this case On that point
The complainant did sustain grevous bodily harm lhe
injuries complainant were OF snch serious "'uo
that for several 1t grave question wne'her
O, not he would There Is, OF course great
conflict between testimony OF the complainant ana the
defendant. You decide between these conflicting
statements.
THE DEFENDANTS CONFESSION OF PERJURY
The defendant has you the wiinessstand that he
once committed perjury lie committed It In defence OF
!. woman You have heard some talk that a man must
commit perjury to defend the honor OF woman Iha'
.. al taik,, Is not the law OF this state. tell you
here now that when q here and tells you that
he has committed perjury once. you must take that fact
IN consideration In deciding the credlbty TO be
given TO the evidence You must take into
-. uo,,va which this witness has swear falsely.
witnesses told that We defendant went
into saloon after the alleged assault and told persons
there that no man the street, that he nit him.
that then the man fred him and that he then beat him
II this evidence truthful 1t seems 70 me IL must have
sorSa effect on this case-what effect you must say
ha1.n Said