Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1894-09-27
DELAWARE GAZETTE AND STATE JOURNAL-WIIAlINGr II

In case of resistance offered by Carlo
Ruva and did assault and kill him In
pursuant to his design then the verdict of
the jury should be guilty in manner and
form as indicted
The defendants counsel William s.
Hilles and William Michael Byrne, ask
for tho following instructions to the
jury:
The homicide, as charged in the in
dictment, being proved, the law presumes
that 1t was committed with malice,
unless the contrary appears upon the
proof produced at the trial, but 1t goes
further than TO imply malice, and there
fore the legal presumption goes no
further in such case than that it is
murder in the second degree under our
statute. 81
In order for the jury to find verdict
OF murder in the first degree, it will be
necessary that they should be salts
fled beyond reasonable doubt that
the killing was the result OF q sedate,
deliberate mind on the part of the
prisoner to kill Carlo Ruva or to do him
some great bodily harm.
If the jury shall believe that tho kill
ing was done on proyocation, but that
sufficient time had elapsed for the blood
to cool, for passion to subside and reason
to interpose, it would lie murder in the
second degree.
If the jury believes from the evidence
that Carlo Ruva made an assault upon
the prisoner in the saloon and that an
alteration cnsued between prisoner and
deceased and the prisoner in the heat of
passion occasioned thereby and without
cooling time having interviewed, killed
the deceased, it would be manslaughter
and not murder.
There are no precise limits of time
within which the blood may be sup
posed TO cool, passion TO subside and
reason to interposc, but every case de-
pends upon lis own circumstances, and
the cooling time would be what was
reasonable under the circumstances.
II the jury shall believe from the
evidence that owing to the prisoners
intoxication, the condition of the
prisoners mind and his mental ca
pacity was such that he was unable to
form a specific intent or deliberate
design to kill the deceased, they cannot
find the prisoner guilty Of murder in
the first degree.
dencc that the homicide was committed
by the accused in state of intoxication
aud by a certain provocation given him
by the party killed, and when smaller
provocation may be allowed to alleviate
the offence and reduce it from murder
IN the first to murder in the second de-
gree under the statute, owing to the
well-known fact that person in that
condition is more liable to be suddenly
heated and blinded to higher degree
OF angry passions than a sober man
would be under the same similar provo
cation, they should find the prisoner
guilty Of murder in the second degree.
The jury must be satisfied of all of
the material facts in the case necessary
to be proved, and if they have in their
minds reasonable doubt in relation to
any of them they should give the pris.
oner the benefit Of such doubt.
Deputy Acknowledgement Giles made
the opening address for the State, during
which he hurriedly reviewed the evi-
dence of the prosecution and closed
with the following remarks:
"After Faino had committed that deed
well might he so and seek the marshes
and the fens, the places were the dead
things are and where the creeping things
live, and in the midst of those reptiles
that there live, hear the hiss of
murder which had urged him to
do this deed. Ont beyond those
marshes and fens that man ran, and
was caught with the blood OF Carlo
Ruva, red upon his hands. If you
believe this, my friends, let your verdict
be one of guilty in manner and form as
he stands indicted"
Mr.. Byrne, in his argument to the
jury, retfeated behind the breastwork
of self.defence, contending that Faino
had been cowed in Crops saloon by
the bull-dozing tactics of Ruva, and
when approached by the owner of tile
saloon, he left the place and ran away
| like a rabbit.
The proof was, he contended, that the
blow was struck more in the paroxysm
of rage than the result of premeditation.