Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-01-09
This the court believed, on examining the
charge was not the case.

This the court believed, on examining the
charge, was not the case
THE QUESTION OF sELF-DErENsE
The court then proceeded to discuss the ex-
captions which raised the question Of self-de-
Tense. The self-dsfense alleged was not against
the wife, but against the wife's brother Frank.
The court revie wed at some length the testimony
describing the shooting, and said that il man
was shown to have fired three shots into another
person while holding her wrist the presump-
ton that there was intention
and malice, even if there had not
been any previous declarations of malice.
To sustain any other theory the burden of
proof would be on the defendant. He referred
to the assumption that the shooting acci-
dental and also that Mrs. Schneider had been
shot BY her brother. The jury, the court said,
after it reviewed the testimony had no other
choice than to find that Mrs Schneider was in
tentionally shot by the defendant, or had been
accidentally shot by her brother, SO that
all exceptions on the ground of self-defense
we're disposed of. They could not have found
fault with the court if it had specifically told
the jury that there was no evidence on which
they could base judgment that the deceased
was shot in self-defense.
As to exclusion of evidence of threats made
against the defendant by Frank Hamlink
Judge Cox said that at the time it was offered
no foundation had been laid for such testimony.
Exceptions were taken to the refusal of the
court to allow witnesses to state their opinions
as to the number of pistol shots fired. This
testimony the court thought was properly ex-
Guided
THE MARY HARRIS TESTIMONY.
1t was claimed that an important error had
been committed in admitting the testimony of
Mary Harris in rebuttal. The testimony was
offered after the defense had closed its case in
chief and was objected to because it was not
proper in rebuttal and the name had not been
included, according to the provisions OF the
statute, in the list Of witnesses furnished the
defense The court held that this statute was
not intended to preclude the United States
to make use OF any material infor-
nation discovered during the trial The
court cited opinions to the effect
that it was the duty of the trial justice to admit
at any time during a trial material evidence to
case even where the strict rule might exclude
1t. The court was of the opinion that no error
had been committed in admitting this testi-
mony. In relation to the exceptions based upon
the cross-examnation of Holbrook and of
Walker in reference to the jury, the court
discovered no error and remarked that
the time was past when juries should
be treated like children and regarded as having
been rendered incompetent to perform their
sworn duty, because of some remark by wit
ness that might tend to hurt their feelings
OTHER OBJECTIONS ovERRULED.
The court then considered the exceptions re-
lating to the exclusion of testimony offered by
the defense in surrebnttal on various points in
the case and overruled them. There
were, he said. allegations in the defendants
brief as to improper cross examinations. The
court was: satisfied that none of the instances
cited were plainly errors or went to the detri-
ment of the defendant
THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COURT.
Coming to the instructions the court said three
had been granted at the instance of the govern
ment sixteen had been offered by the defense.
The second of these instructions related to the
matter of reasonable doubt. The court had
not allowed this, but had adopted
in its Mace the instruction approyed