The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-12-20
Judge Mclaughlin Sets bside The Action
Of the County Court.
THE STAPLES TESTIMONY EXCLUDED
Judge Moore's Language Too Harsh In
Writing the Instructions to tho Jury
Mauy Were Ruled Out,

ebany court on August goth, and his
ouu!shmcnt fixed at eighteen years in
the pcnitenuary. His counsel appealed to
tho Circuit Court, ana after mature de-
liberation and able argument of counsel
on both sides Judge Mclaughlin to-day
gave a decision IN favor of the defendant.
The Judge says.
first. Ihat there is no error i'm the first.
second and ninth bills OF exception.
'Tue grand jury was properly constituted,
and the County Court properly rejected
the pleas thereto and the motion in arrest
OF Judgment
second. There is error i'm bill of excep-
tlou third iu admitting what IS known as
the Staples testimony. Even " the ditOi-
ley Tor the accused unadviSedly WdlNed
am objection to proof of the spec nc
charges i'm The Parsons letter, yet the
record shows they persistently objected
10 this evidence ana never waived thelr
objection, COntcndiuG that a. ditlcul'y WIN
the section master al SpilnSWOOo was a
different charge from q dlihculty with lhe
station agent AT SaltpCtrc cave, as al
legged In The Parsons letter. But IL -
said that il is admissible 10 prove M M
live Why prove mOtiVcy The holnlcide
was clearly proven, and there was no
doubt as to who was the slayer. ne
letter of Parsons and the reply OF poou-
man were properly admitted 10 shp" In'
state Of feeling of Goodman towards b@l-
sons but IL was not proper 10 prove lHe
truth of the charges iu PdrSol ftlei'
III made false issue, was CdIS ulaied 10
di.ial TO the accused. A person Iead-hS
a large part of the evidence, anu tapcc
ci8llv part OF the croSo-eNanlhdlluH vi
Goodman. might lnler tnal my VI
ifvirg him for improper advances 10 MIS
Staples rather than for the murder Oh H.
Z. Parsons.
THE STAPLES TESTIMONY.
Third. There Is error i'm the louItn Pm
OF exception, in not STRIKING OUT lhe
Staples testimony after II was erroneous
'Fourth. There is error in the nth bill
Of exception. i'm not admitting eFldeuCe
OF the habit of conductors in catIylIs
nre-arms when on duty Ih!s was PiVpeI
evidence 10 20 to the jury 10 explain no"
Goodman came 20 be armed the MOI otiilu3
,f the aflray, and also 10 De "ttSutu
by the jury in seeming conIhCt oL oLI DIi
oencc as to whether he went To ms saiclc
Il for the letter or his pistol ENeh ii
81 was a violation Of law Tor hlm 70 oaiay
his pistol when off his tram, ana III boins
10 and returning from his lodElns' Wh!Gh
IS q narrow and technical we" oI % .he
ttatute, vot 81 was admissible, for the
teasOn given above.
HADEN PENE's TESTIMONY.
H1jfth. Il is unnecessary 10 pass ON lhe
question raised m ~ the 3on S'N Penn,s test-
mony. as the evidence 1T was lH'ei'"'" ~
meet has been excluded. ..,.,,
sixth. There ls error I'm iut StN eHtI t
hin of exception; FIRST i'm refusing 20
ieaye the fourth iustru4 ION aaEea 10,
bV the defendant, that pfopoUhutH 81
clear and correct proposition Cl Ia"' az,
pllcable TO one phase Of evidence, anu
should have been given, III is oDletttu
that it l5 not warranted by the eNlucHC'
that the evidence does not SHOW lhat
Goodman was jon transport OF passion
but his evidence tends 10 snow lhdl NE
was greatly excited, ana IL DIS IGI lhe
jury TO determine Iom lii" tt
whether it amounted 10 transport oi
m is also objected that 80 excludes the
L. ID
and vice versa II is also objected That
should not have been SlNtimr i3tgcaus'
the accused was relying ON scl-deicnct'
bur DO is allowable TO rely upon both de-
leI GEES.
THY INSTRUCTIONS SOT SUSTAINED.
The Court should not have given me
substitute for this instruction. NOT ohIl
WAS the fourth instruction proper bui
the substitute was SUBJECT To sen iID"7
objection iu cuntaining the luea of malice
and passion. which cannot Vo-eNisL
second. The 'oo4rt T etlS1 an "a
seventh instructions as propound-
ed by the defendant TheN pro
pounded clear and correct propositions OF
law. applicable TO the case. II was error
q make the addeudum TO each of the
instructions. and even II the addendum
embraced correct propositions of law, of
which hereafter. 10 should have been pre-
eanted as separate instruction ana not
o. ,llcd ON TO an instruction which was
proper This is the proper practice.
Third There is no error IN the first
second third, fourth. hith, sixth, and
seventh instructions given az the instance
of the commonwealth. Ihey embody
correct principles of law which nave been
sanctioned by our courts of last resort
and the practice OF giving them IN inns
abstract form has been well established
i'm numerous cases. upon another trial
OTHERS SHOULD HAVE OMITTED.
Tho third and seventh instructions
should be omitted. as they relate to
murder in the first degree, for which the
Fonrtb. he eighth instruction is sub
lcet to the objection that IL says PROV
first degree. thus combining malice and
passion. which cannot CO-eNlSt. HY insert
ing homicide or killing in the place OF
muri' 'r i'm The first degree, the iH5truc-
tion would be proper The instruction
does not restrict the time WITHIN Whlch
the proVucation was given, but leaves
that for the consideration OF the jury.
Firth. The ninth instruction may De
law. but il may he omitted upon another
trial as 10 refers TO murder in the first
degree OF which the accused stands ac-
sixth. There is no error in the tenth
instruction. 1t was properly given.
OBNOXIOUS LANGUAGE RUBBED OUT
Seventh. The eleventh instruction Is
objectionable for the harsh language
used-brutal. diabolical mallsnty. il Is
an expression hN the Court on me CYL
dence. and calculated to influence the
iurv. The instruction should taVc peen
Couchcd in milder language ana so modl-
ned II prOpounded upon another trial.
Eighth / do not think there Is any er-
ror I'm the twelfth and thirteenth lnStruc-
Ninth. The fourteenth instruction is cr-
roueous in assuming that there must be
actual necessity 10 Kin. An honest ana
Yeasonatlc apprehension Of imminent ana
immcdiatc danger is sufficient. The in
sfruction Is mislcadins and should not
have been given IN this case.
NOT DEPRIVED oF PLEA OF sELF-DEFRSCE.
Tenth. The fifteenth instruction is er-
roneous for the same reason. Also that
the evidence does not tehd 10 snow lhat
Goodman behaved in way TO deprive
him of the plea Of self-dCfence. The cN-
precision "rCtrCdtlnS Is misleading IN
this case.
Eleventh. Upon mature consideration,
/ think that the sixteenth OBSTRUCTION
ought not 10 have been given. The stat
ute tendcrly provides that the failure OF
the accused 10 testify shall create no
presumption against him, nor be the sub
iect Of comment before the Court or Jury
By the prosecuting attorney. Jhis ln-
etruCiiOn Is plainly aimed at the accused,
and in the spirit OF the law, the Court
ought not 10 place the brand OF diScrecit
on the weight OF his testimony before the
Twelfth. / think there Is no error in the
seventeenth instruction, aud that II was
properly given. Fairly read, / think 1t
embraces the idea in Parrlsh's case.
NEW TRIAL ORDERED.