Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-08-17

u,,i,,.n no matter how grievous soever
thev nav be. will afford sufficient pro-
vacation 10 free the party killing from tne
s,,,,l, Of murder; and that II they beiieve
from the evidence that the T, A. Good
man Killed H. G. Parsons with deadiy
vnaDon, by reason OF the contents OF
,hc letter OF June T. 1904. written by the
,aid Parsons TO the Chesapeake and ONO
Railroad Company. the said Goodman is
guiity OF murder, Notwithstanding any
nrovocation contained I'm said letter
a. The Court Instincts the jury that
IN A. trial for murder the necessity Te-
lied on 10 justify Killing must not arse
out Of the prisoners own misconduct
unless the jury believe from the evidence
that. although the necessity did arise out
OF the prisoners own misconduct, the
accused before committing the homlcide
IN rly declined an encounter between NM
self and the party killed by retrcating az
far as he could and then did the killing
In self-defence.
Is. The Court instructs the jury that In
order 10 make out case OF sclf-defence
the prisoner, T. A. Goodman. must show
10 the jury that the shooting Of ii. {.
Parsons was necessary TO protect MS own
life. or TO protect him against grievous
bodily harm. and with regard 10 the neces-
sity that win Justify the Staying q II. G.
Parsons, In self defence, ne Goodman
must not have wrongfully occasioned the
necessity: for the Court tells the jury that
a man shall not in any case Justify the
killing Of another upon plea OF neces-
sity unless he be without fault IN bringing
that necessity upon himself. unless the
iurv believe from the evidence that, al
though the necessity did arise out or the
prlsoner's own misconduct the accused
before committing the homicide, fairy
declined an encounter between himself
and The party killed by retreating as far
"a ne could, and then did the killing in
self-dcfcnce
ie The jury are instructed that II is
their peculiar province 20 pass upon the
xyc,cb, Of the evidence and the crediblity
~ the witnesses: and that where there Is
a conflict in the testimony OF witnesses
the interest Of any particular witness may
Dc considered affecting his credibinty 10
the extent OF their rejecting ana dispe-
r.v;ng gaid testimony in whole or in part,
ana that this rule OF law apples to the
accused az well as all other witnesses
when he il introduced as witness IN MS
own behalf.
H. The Court instructs the jury that
man is not unsuitable in shooting another
when there il mere apprehension OF I'M
mediate danger. no matter how sincere
slch apprehension may be; but there must
he an honest and reasonable belief OF such
dauger-that Is To say, the act done or
Circumstance existing must be or such
character a. to afford reasonable ground
for believing there is a design TO commit
a felony or TO do some serious bodily
harm. and that there is imminent danger
Of such design being carried into immediate
execution. and there must be an overt ACT
Indicative Of such design.
FOR THE DEFENCE.
Those for the defence were read by Mr.
Parrish and are here given:
J. That the law presumes every person
charged with crime to he innocent until
his guilt is established by the Common
wealth beyond a reasonable doubt, ana
this presumption of innocence goes win
the prisoner through the entire case, ana
APPLIES al every stage thereof; and they
are instructed that although they might
have believed when the Commonwealth
closed its case that the prisoner at the
bar was guilty beyond reasonable doubt,
vet IT, after having heard the evidence IN
troduced on behalf of the prisoner, they
have reasonable doubt as to his guilt upon
the whole case. OF as to any 1act es-
sential 20 prove the charges made against
him on Ne Indictment. it is their duty TO
give the prisoner the benent OF the doupt'
and TO find him not guilty.
2 That upon the trial Of this case. II
a reasonable doubt of any fact necessary
to establish the prisoners guilt as charged
i'm the Indictment be raised by the evil
dence. such doubt is decisive, ana the
Jury must acqut the prisoner, since
verdict OF not guilty means no more than
that the guilt of the accused has not
been demonstrated on the precise. specihc'
and narrow forms prescribed by law
-
the case. there is any rational hypothesis
consistent with the conclusion that the
killing Of Parsons was eXcusable or Justi-
fable. they must find the prisoner not
guilty.
IL the Jury believe from the evidence
that the prisoner, upon sudden ana vlo-
lent provOcatiOn, without malice, ana IN
a transport of passion Killed the deceased
they are further instructed that they can
not find the prisoner guilty of any greater
offence than voluntary granddaughter.
;. That If the jury believe from the evil
dence that the prisoner, provoked by a
previous insult or charge contained IN an
unsigned letter. took a copy of said letter
TO H. G. Parsons, without any previously
formed design Of committing a felony
by killing said Parsons. or infiicting upon
him some serious bodily injury. stating
i'm substance to said Parsons that said
letter contained false charges that were
insulting TO him and his family, ana
asking said Parsons If he was the author
of said letter. and If he was the author
that he should retract said charges, ana
that said Parsons refused TO retract said
charges. and said in substance to the
prisoner that he and his family would
not be considered, and attempted TO pass
the prisoner standing about or in the
doorway at Gladys Inn, and that the
prisoner put his hand on the shoulder or
breast Of Parsons and repeated his de-
mand that Parsons retract said charges
and that Parsons threw his hand in the
direction of his hip-pocket, making a mo-
tiOn as If to draw a weapon, and that
the accused shot and killed said Parsons.
honestly and reasonably believing at the
time Of the killing that he was in immi-
nent and immediate danger of losing his
own life, or OF suffering serious Dodlly
harm (and these matters depend upon
the circumstances as they appeared TO the
accused. then he cannot be convicted of
any offence whatever, although they may
believe from the evidence that the pris-
oner was not in imminent and immediate
danger Of losing his own life or of suffer-
ing serious bodily harm, the Court IN
structing the Jury that if the prisoner
acted from honest and reasonable appre-
hcnsion of imminent and immediate dan
ger. he must judge for himself OF the
extent of the danger that threatened hlnl
Provided the necessity, real or apparent,
relied on to justify the killing must not
nave arisen out of the prisoners own mis-
conduct. unless the jury further believe
from the evidence that. although the ne
cessity did thus arise out OF the prisoner
own misconduct, the accused before firing
the fatal shot or shots. fairly declined
an encounter between himself and the
said Parsons by retreating as iar as ne
could and then firing in self-defence.
G. The Court further instructs the jury
/ that If they shall believe from the evil
! dcnce that the prisoner under the CIR
! cuinstances stated In the fifth instruction.
/ killed II. G. Parsons under an honest
/ and reasonable apprehension that his own
/ life was in imminent and immediate dan
| ger. or that he was in imminent and i'm
! mediate danger Of serious bodily injury,
/ he was justified in so doing. though such
! danger was not real the question FOR
/ the Jury In this case is not whether the
/ taking Of the life of the deceased might
/ have been safely avoided but whether the
I defendant, under the circumstances In
which he was placed. might reasonably