Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1894-03-13
rMl JUDGES CHANCE.


merely time eG0ugh tO clearly form an
Intent bcfoyr the act u c0mmltted. Nov,
upon that point, becaase 70 u nesessary
20 consider thls whether you nnd the
prisoner guilty of murder In The nrst or
second degree, there must be an sfore-
thought.
Il r. maintained that there 10 no evi-
s~ncr In shls c,se 90 show that the 70
:pondent acted from any E.evIo1siy
formed design, from any dellberation,
and this IL grave question addressed
to you. aud you must determine thst
from the evidence which you have heard.
have told you that it 70 not necessary
that there should be any malice aforr-
thought towards The particular person
Killed. Il IL sufficient II lt cxist towards
persons generally. Il Il sufficient 70 u
exist towards q person other than the
one killed, who Was aimed at aud mlss-
ed. I viii give you an Illustration OF
What mean upon this point. Suppose
the respondent In this case had upon hls
person nov his revolver fully charged,
and he forms dcslgu of escaping, and
for the purpose of facilitating hls escspe
he should draw q from hls pocket and
discharge it Into the crowd of men here
In thls court room for the purpose OF
hitting some QUE aud crrating confusion,
and thereby enabling him to escape. "
the charge took effect upon any person
and resulted In hls death, thc respond.
ent would be- guilty of murder In the
hrst degree, although he had M partlcu-
lar malice toward any person In the
court room. and although he aimed hIs
revolver nj no man In particular, because
there would be all the elements ! have
given you to constitute that offence.
The application Of thls rule Ia the
present case IL thls: the theory OF the
state through its learned council IL that
the respondent started out on en- unlaw-
fui enterprise, and that unlawful enter
prise embracci the breaking and enter
Ing Of the store Of Hutchinson a Newell,
for the purpose of committing larceny
In the night time. and that before atari
Ing on that enterprise the respondent
charged, carrying u upon hls person,
and Il IL claimed that when he started
out on this unlawful enterprise he had
the design Of aiming hlmsslf for the
purpose Of using the deadly weapon
which he carried upon any pcrson " 70
should become necessary to prevent lac
full apprehension aud arrcst, aud that be
broke and entered the store aud while
therein, the owner. Mr.. Newell, accom-.
panied BY Officer Garland aud iiArrisoo
A. whitman, undertook tn apprehepd
him and Ia fact did apprcheud him. and
In the struggle and before he escaped,
and In execution of his previous plan
aud design. he discharged his revolver
and killed whitman. This, say, h the
theory of the state.
tn the other hand, u IL claimed In be-
half Of the respondent that be had no
such design or parpose, aud that he had
no Intention of killing any one, and that
the shooting Vas not done by him but
VAS the act of some other party. OF
this shall speak At o later point. ! an
now presenting the position claimed by
the state aud giving you the la~ appii-
cable TAI that position. supposing you
come to the conclusion that even u the
act of shooting was done by the respond.
eut. but that he had no Intention of
killing az claimed by the states ccunsei,
no such formed design or purpose, that
the shooting VAS instantaneous, done
accidentally, that 10 Was the result of
the confusion and fright caused BY the
apprehension by Newell. Then ! In
.truct you, u YOU Ind he had no design
20 Nil any one, no design Ia nee h's
deadly weapon upon any one and lniict
death or serious bodily harm iii the
moment be- us~i 10. aud used u ~ the
result of the confusiou and fright caused
by his discovery and apprehension by
Newell, tben YOU would not be war
rsnied In finding q verdict of murder ~
the nrst degree. You will ...rrflly
scrutlni,e the evidence ms, h,. h~n
submitted To you aus. s.,s,m,ne which
position u c"rrsss. FOR What purpose
gu" NE .s..,N vots II the evidence satish--
yJu that he did start out Ia break and
enter the store, aud about which there IL
no serious contention.
may say right herr 10 YOU that all
the evidence ID for your consideration,
not for mine. idischsrge my duty wlsep
I give YOU the rule. Of Law and call your
attention la Q general way Ia the theory
% each side and the general features of
the evidence. For what purpose did the
respondent arm himself With revolver
II you are satisfied from the evidence
that he did 80 arm himself before enter
Ing the store In question. Was II for
the lawful purpose ofprotecting himself
against an unla~fu assault which might
endAnger his life or inlet upon him
some great bodily harm, or MAS u for
the other purpose Of furthering his I'M
lawful design and enterprise of breaking
aud entering aud committing lArcepy,
and protecting himself from lawful ap-
prehenslon or arrest,
1 Instruct you as matter of Law upon
this question of the acts of Oficer Gar
land aud 10 Mr.. Newell, " you ARE salts
iied from all the evidence In the case that
this respondent was In HE store on the
night In question st the time Il IL claim
ed for the purpose of committing LARGE
nv therein. had broken and enterci,-
that Il vas lawful for the owner Of that
store either himself personally or by the
employment Of such aid ~ be- could pro-
cure 10 apprehend the party thus In the
store for the purpose of larceny, and u
would be lawful act on the part ut the
owner % that store or OF any person
whom be employed To sssist him, wheth.
er he hsd warrant or not. You must
the store Vas there for the purpose OF
committing felony. for the purpose Of
committing larceny In the night time.
and then the Law does not require .
private person even 10 walt until he can
procure q warrant for the apprehension
ola person committing q felony In a
store In the night time. lie has the
right To spprehend that party In the
commission Of the act either by himself
or by any person whom he employs To
assist him, aud an officer has the ssme
right To do that act ~ the Individual u
employed by the individual to assist
him.
In ascertslnins the intent OF man We
must do it ordinarily by his acts and the
circumstances surrounding them. Men
are held 10 intend the ordinary aud
natural consequences Of their acts.
Their acts are evidence Of the Intention
with which they do them. Are you
satisfied that this respondent started out
armed With = deadly weapon as claimed
by the state, For what purpose did he
arm himself With such weapon, II the
evidence satisfies you he VAS 90 armedi
Did he arm himself for the purpose Of
protecting himself In = lawful way.
such as being assaulted upon the street
bya person Who had no. authority TO
touch him. while In the lawful pursuit.
Of buslnesst Or did he arm hlmself With
Il to be used u necessary In the unlaw-
ful manner claimed by the statei These
are questions Addressed to your judg-
ment from the evidence presented In the
case.
Then the next question Is whether or