The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-10-17

dence satisfies them. and each one of them
OF the existence Of every ingredient or the
the jury are fully Informed on the doc
trine of reasonable doubt, as applied &c
this case, and they are told that before COT
sonable doubt by the evidence. OF whatever
class IL nay be. and considering all the
facts and circumstances In the evidence
as a whole Even more than this, the coufs
In its first instruction. after stating the
charge as made in the indictment, sets forth
the appellants defense. making also specific
excuse urged, or that could be urged, by
him. for the killing TIC this indictment
says the court, the defendant enters. the
general plea Of mot guilty" Upon the issue
to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, every
material allegation OF the indictment. tina
he actually killed western =: Thomas. N
in the Indictment, and that such killing was
done under such circumstances as the law
will not excuse, Had the killing been aone
In self-defense the law would have excused
il. and that the killing was not so done,
that such excuse does not exist, must De
proved by. the State. saws the instruction
beyond all reasonable doubt. We think,
therefore, that the jury were, in fact, Iuiiy
informed that the rule OF reasonable DOUBT
applied to the whole case, and 70 every
specific part of IL. including the defense OF
self-defense. Consequently there was no er-
ror in refusing 10 give instruction number
seventeen, as requested.
INSTRUCTION TwENTY-THREE-
Complaint is next made that the court
refused to give instruction number twenty
three, asked by the appellant, and in which
the facts claimed 10 have been proved by
MIN, with the law applicable thereto, are
stated. and the law claimed to apply there
to, relate to appellants plea of self-de-
Tense. The court gave twenty-one carefully
repared Instructions. in which the jury
were very fully and fairly Informed of their
the rules of law applying thereto: The IN,
structions relating to self-defense were most
favorable TO the appellant.
las said in Koerner vs.. State (8 IND, %,
When the court has put the whole case
to the jury by proper and full Instructions,
as was done in this case it is not neces.
sary to instruct upon each separate item or
evidence. nor to direct the jury to determine
between the different theories of the state
and the accused. The tenth instruction
given vl by d the c9apt WAS sns;s as f tSas the killing
Of Western B.. Thomas was done in self-de-
Tense and this requires the court 10 IN
one man may xiii another. under. such cir
cumstances as that the homicide constr
tutes no crime. but is justified by the law.
The doctrine of self-defense as applied hy
the evidence in this case may be thus de-
fined: Where a person being without fault
and is i'm q place where he has a right 70
be. so far as his assailant Is concerned, Is
violently assaulted. he may. without re-
treating, repel force by force, aad he need
not believe that his safety requires him 70
kill his adversary in order to give MN rlgnl
TO make use of force for that purpose Wnen
from the acts Of his assailant he believes
and has reasonable ground to believe that
he Is in danger of losing his
from his adversary the right TO de-
fend himself from such danger or appre-
hended danger may be exercised py nun,
- 49, n~fanr UhfQh 4 c
reasonably necessary, and If his assailant
is killed as a result from the reasonable
defense of himself he Is excusable. The
Inc necessity or apparent necessity, as well
as the amount of force necessary to en-
ploy 10 resists the attack can only be de-
termined from the est stan n05 an OF IN, tne e utisffihu
circumstances. Ordinarily. one exercising tn
right of self-defense Is required 10 ACT upon
the instant and without TIME 20 cshps er-
cumstances the danger which exists only
in appearance is as real and imminent as
if ii were actual
with this Instruction. SO full and COM
plete on the law Of. self-defense' and SO Ia
vorable to the appellant, and with DINERS
on the subject of reasonable DOUBT and OF
the of innocence, witt stiil an
other on self-defense as an excuse Tor Kill
ing an adversary, we cannot see that the
appellant suffered any harm by the refusa
Of the court to give instruction twenty
three, as requested.
"It Is contended that the verdict Is nos
supported by the evidence. The verdict wa
for manslaughter. There Is no au n ION ina ma
appellant cut his throat with a kniIe' caus-
ing death in a few moments. we tnint
that from the evidences of those present
Ven from that of the appellant himself
the jury might conclude, without any isS-
sonable doubt, that the appellant unlawfully
killed the deceased, voluntarily ana upon a
cuse of self-defense fer his act. II is IN
certain from the evidence whether the de-
ceased simply laid his hand upon appeiianl
in a sort of maudlin familiarity, or whethe
he struck at appellant with his fist afte'
they began quarreling. 1t Is certain, now
ever. that the deceased was unarmed, and,
at most, that in their scuf1e he struck APP
pellant with his fist. But, as a general rule
the law will not excuse one who repeis Q
blow with the fist by stabbing his assai.-
VS.. State, 81 Am. Dec, 766; n Am. and Eng
Enc. Law, 1882 And the jury might WEI
find from the evidence that there were no
circumstances why the case at bar should
form an exception to this general rule.
"A like contention is made as TO whether
TWO OF the jury had not expressed opinions
as to the merits of the case before they
were selected to try it. The court tried tn 5
question by bringing together the two Juf-
ors and the witnesses who had hled aff1-
davits against them: and all were ques-
toned under oath, when the court found
hat the charge was not sustained. There
being evidence TO support this decision, we
cannot, un0er the Well-eStdDifSneu RUE, us
turb it on this appeal.
There appearing no available error in the
proceedings, the Judgment Is affirmed"
-
Grand Jury Report.
The grand jury yesterday made a final
report. recommending the discharge OF
Julia Carseli, accused of mixing poison in
the coffee of Charles Warield; also of
Frank McCarty, accused Of receiving stolen
goods. The jury examined l7 witnesses,
discharged five cases and returned twenty
nine indictments. The grand jury com
mends the condition of the poorhouse,
county Jail and county workhouse. II
recommends that more beds be purchased
for the workhouse.
Indictments returned and allowed to be
made public are as follows: Alonzo
Rocker. murder and assault and battery
with intent to murder; George Gray, EN-
bezzlement: Robert Williams and james
larry; James Solenburg. grand larceny;
Isaac Reynolds, Robert Parker, Edward
Milburn. burglary; Albert Hunter, issuing
forged check: Frank Smock, petit larceny
Frank Smock, grand larceny.
Smith Gets Six Years.
Charles Smith, the colored man indicted
In connection with Dewitt Nay, who was
found guilty and sentenced to fourteen