The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-08-17
VOL. S-NEW SERIES NO !3i.

TTTN TWNTTWTTTV UNIT
OF reproach or accusation, spoken or writ
ten. no matter 80 grieVous sOevcr they
may be. Will afford sufficient proVocaton
10 free the party killing from the guilt or
murder, and that II they believe from
The evidence that 4. \. Goodman killed
n. &. Parsons with a deadly WEAPON, ny
reason OF the contents OF the letter GA
June T. 1884, written by the said Parsons
10 the Chesapeake and Ohio killrodd
company the said Goodman Is tulty Ol
murder. notwithstanding any piONocatioh
contained n said letter.
IA. The Court instructs the jury that in
a trial for murder the necessity rehcl
ON 70 Justify killing must not arise out OF
the prisoners own misconduct uih'SS uc
jury believe from the evidence tndt' a.
though the necessity did arise oui OF lhe
prisoners own misconduct tn aJcused
before committing the homicide Ialll} ne
Clincd an encounter between him~c,I ana
tac party killed by retreating as ldI as
hc could and then did the killing ia sel-
defence.
WHAT srft t-nEFfNcE g.
II. The court instructs the jury mat IN
order 90 make Out ease ol sen -lVAViiDc
the prisoner. J.. a.. Goodman. must snow
to the Jury that the shooting Uf II. Z.
Parsons was necessary 10 protect ms own
life. or 10 protect MIN against SllcFous
bodily harm. and Win Ichdfd 10 the "'
cessIty ihdt Viii Justify me staying oi
H. &. Parsons in seif-drfeucc. lc Vf"od,
man must NOT have Wrongfully Occtalonth
the necessity; for tlc court tells the Jury
that "a man shah not I'm any case JuS
the killing OF another upon the pee % ne
cessitv unless be De without default On
bringing that necessity upon hl!nsel, uH-
less the jury believe from the eE.iehce
that. although the necessity 4ld arse out
OF the prisoners own misconduct inc &C
cused before committing the homicide
idlrly declined am encounter between MN
self and the party killed, by TetreauhB ass
far as ne could, and then did the killins
in Sclf-defcuce
16 The jury are instructed that II IS
their peculiar province to pass upon the
weight Of the evidence and thc credl9iliiy
Of the witnesses, and that where there Is
a conflict IN the testimony OF vi ncSseS
the interest Of any particular witness nav
be considered affecting MS cre1ibilliy 10
the extent OF their rejecting and Gishe-
leving said testimony in whole or IN part,
and that this rule Of law applies 10 tn@
accused As well as all other witnesses
when he Is introduced as a witness III l'7
own behalf.
H. The court instructs the jury mat
man Is not iusiihahle in shooting aholHrl
when there is mere apprehension or 'lll-
mediate danger no matter 10" 81 lt'Ie
such apprehension may he; but theFe ihual
be an hOnest and reasonable belei oi such
danger-that is 20 say, the ACT zone 'i
circumstance existing must be of such Il
character as 60 afford rclsonanle SrOuhu
for believing taere Is design 10 commit
a felony OF 10 90 some serious noGhy
harm. and that there is imminent danger
of such design being carried INTO lHlult-
diate execution: and there must be an
overt act indicative Of such design
INsTiaU, IONS OF IHE DfTENCI
Mr.. Parrish read the instructions asked
for by the defence, which, after being
amended by the Court, read as follows:
l. That the law prcSumcs every person
charged win crime 10 be innocent until
his guilt is established by the Common
wealth beyond a reasonable doubt, ana
this presumption Of innocence goes VIII
the prisoner through the entire case, ana
applies al every stage thereof ana tht5
are instructed that although they mitnl
have believed when the COmmOnW I'm
bar was guilty beyond reasonable doubl'
yet IT, after having heard the evidence
introduced on behalf of the prisoner they
have reasonable doubt as TO his quit upon
the whole case. or as 10 any fact essential
to prove the charges made against MN on
the Indictment. IT IS their duty 70 gNe
the prisoner the benefit of the DOUBT, ana
to find him not guilty.
2 That upon the trial Of this case. If
q reasonable doubt OF any iact ne 'eSatly
to establish the prisoner guilt as charged
i'm the Indictment he raised by the evil
dence. such doubt Is decisive, ana the
jury must acquit the prisoner, since Il
verdict of not guilty means no more than
that the guilt of the accused has not been
demonstrated on the precise, speciic ana
narrow forms prescribed by the law
g. Ihdt II, upon the WnOle etiqtncc il
! the case. there Is any rational hypothesis
consistent with the conclusion that the
| killing Of Parsons was eNcusable or JuStl-
fable, they must find the prisoner not
4. If the jury believe. from the evi-
| dence. that the prisoner upon sudden
! and violent provOcatiOn, without malice
and in a transport Of passion, Killed the
| deceased they are further instructed that
they cannot find the prisoner guilty OF
! any greater offence than voluntary man.
| slaughter.
sEIF-DEFENCE PLEA.
| s. That If the jury believe from the evi-
| dence that the prisoner. provoked by a
previous insult or charge contained in an
unsigned letter, took copy Of said letter
/ u II. G. Parsons, without any preylousi}-
| formed design of committing felony Ay
| killing said Parsons, or inhlcting upon
him some serious bodily injury. stating
| in substance to said Parsons that said
| letter contained false charges that were
insulting to him and his family, ani ask
ing said Parsons If he was the author OF
said letter, and If he was the author that
ne should retract said charges, and that
said Parsons refused to retact said
charges. and said in substance TO the
prisoner that he and his family would
not be considered. and attempted 20 pass
the prisoner standing about or i'm the
prisoner put his hand on the shoulder or
breast of Parsons and repeated his de-
mand thatfParsons retract said charges
and that Parsons threw his hand In the
direction OF his hip-pOcket, making mo-
tiOn as II to draw a weapon. and that
the accused shot and killed said Parsogs
honestly ana reasonably btutNlHE dl the
time Of the killing that he was I'm immi-
nrnt and immediate danger OF losing his
own life. or of suffering serious bodily
harm (and these matters depend upon the
circumstances as they appeared 10 the
accused. then he cannot be convicted Of
any offence whatever, although they may
believe from the evidence that the Prison
er was not I'm imminent and immediate
danger Of 4Osng his own life or of suner-
ing serious bodily harm, the Court In
structing the jury that If the prisoner
acted from honest and reasonable appre-
hensiOn Of imminent and immediate dam
ger he must judge for himself OF the
extent Of the danger that threatened him.
Provided the necessity, real or apparent
relied on 10 justify the killing must not
have arisen out Of the prisoners own
misconduct; unless the jury further be
lieye from the evidence that, although the
necessity did thus arise out of the prison
er's own misconduct, the accused beIofe
firing the fatal shot or shots. fairly de-
riined an encounter between himself and
the said Parsons by retreaung as far as
he could and then firing In self-defence
THE RrAsOk FOR BELIEVING 50.
Tho Court further instructs the jury
that If they shall believe from tne efl-
dnnce that the prisoner under the CIR
cnmstances stated IN the fifth instruction,
killed H. c. Parsons under an nOHtSt
and reasonable apprehension that his own
life was in imminent and immediate dan
GER or that he was in imminent ana I'M
mediate danger Of serious bodily INJURY,
ne was Justified in so doing. though such
danger was not real; the question FOR
the Jury in this case Is not whether the