The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-03-13
IT IS NEARING TIE CLOSE.
Argument Begun In the Trial Of Captain
Goodman.
INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE COURT.
Psrts Of Those Submitted by the Last Side
AiIowed-The Largest Crowd Yet Pros-
ent at Yesterdays Session.

pTODdbly from weeping, WHeH SHe en-
tered the courtroom ,Hs morning. She
buried her face in her hands. and woPt
for some time. quietly. Her face las
never worn a cheerful expression. unless
IL may be said that the brief lifting OF
the CLOUD from IL, which occurred while
witnesses were testifying 10 Captain
EoodNan's integrity and vcracity. may be
called ~ manifestation of cheerfulness
The three year Old boy. who has been
almost constantly IN court. Is now very
Ill.
The entire morning was consumed in
argument on the Instructions asked for
by defence and prosecution. Those en-
gaging in tho argument were Captain
Wood. Colonel Craig and Mr.. Letcher
for the state and Colonel Parrish and
Mr.. Crump for the prisoner
THE AEGUMtNT BEGUN.
Argument was begun by Mr. Letcher
for the prosecution. His speech made
a good imprc; IN. lie dealt largely with
the Parson liter and pointed out the
duty of Colonel Parsons 10 write II. 1t
merely transmitted. he declared, charges,
the truth of which he lid not avouch. and
asked an investigation Goodman might
just as well have shot Superintendent
Doyle for transmitting them TO Mr.. Walk
er for investigation.
The largest crowG vet present filed the
courthouse throughout to-day's session.
although In popular sense this was
rather uninterssiing day. that is. the ar
gumoDt on the instructions furnished but
little interest for the average court at
tcndant. Mr.. Letchcr afforded them more
enjoyment.
THE INSTRUCTIONS ALLowrD.
These are the instructions proposed by
al dot nd oil
l. That the law presumes every person
charged with crime 10 be innocent dntH
his guilt IL established by the Common
wealth beyond "A reasonable doubt ana
this presumption of innocence goes win
the prisoner through the entire case ana
applies at every stage thereof, and they
are instructed that although they might
have believed when the Commonwealth
closed us case that the prisoner at the
bar was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt;
yet IT, after having heard the evidence
introduced on behalf OF the prisoner. they
have reasonable doubt as to his guilt
upon the whole case. or "a to any fact
essential TO prove the charge made
against him I'm the Indictment IL is their
duty TO give the prisoner the benefit Of
the doubt and find him not guilty
?. That upon the trial of this case. If a
reasonable doubt of any fact necessary
charged in the indictment. be raised by
the evidence. such doubt is decisive. ana
the jury must acquit the prisoner. since "A
verdict of not guilty means no more
han that the guilt of the accused has not
bccn demonstrated i'm the precise. specific
and narrow forms prescribed by law.
3. That IL, upon the whole evidence i'm !
he case, there is any rational hypothesis |
consistent with he conclusion that the |
ii
ihablc they must find the prisoner not
guilty.
THE QUESTION OF INSULT.
T. That If they believe from the evil
lence that the prisoner, provoked by a
previous Insult or charge. contained in
an unsigned letter. took "A copy of said |
- ~ ~ ,9g~AA {. Par519s-- without any pre-
formcrr~ksign Of committing |
felony by killing said Parsons, or in
hicting upon him some serious bodily
injury. stating N substance to said Par
sons that sai1 letter contained charges
hat were insulting 10 him and his fami-
Y. and asking said Parsons If he was
he author OF said letter. ami if ~ was
he author that ne should retract said
harges. and that said Parsons refused to
etrdct said charges. AMI threw sail copy
I said letter upon the 'loor. ana said i'm
INSTANCE To said Goodman that neither
e nor his family were entitled To be
onsidercd in the matter. ma that the
ri5cner. smarting under the insult in
icted upon him at the time but without
ny hostile demonstration by said Par
ms. In a transport If passion, suddenly
nd Immediately drew his pistol and Kill
J said Parsons. III jury are further
lstructed that they cannot find the
riSoncr guilty of any greater offence
nan voluntary manslaughtor.
THE PARSONS IETTRp.
8. That If the jury believe from the
'ldence that the prisoner. provoked by |
previous insult or charge contain IN
n unsigned letter. took copy of said
liter TO III. {. Parsons, without any
re\iously formed design of committing Il
slony by killing said Parsons or mnict-
X upon him som" serious bodily injury
Eating In substance to said Parsons that
aid letter contained charges that were
lsultinG 10 him AMI his family. and ask
* said Parsons IL ne was the author
said letter and. If he was the authot
hat he should retract said charges. and
hat said Parsons refused to retract
aid charges and said in substance
, the prisoner tnat he and his family
ould not be considered and attempted
} pass the prisoner standing about or in
he doorway at Gladys Inn, and that
'isCn put his hand on the shoulder or
reast OF Parsons ana repeated his de-
and that Parsons retract said charges
1d that Parsons threw his hand In the
rection OF his hip pocket, making a mo- "
on as If To draw Il weapon, and that
ie accused shot and killed said Parsons,
)nestly and reasonably believing at the =
me OF the killing that he was I'm immi- .
snt and immediate danger OF losing his :
Hn life or of suffering serious bodily ,
arm tand these matters depend upon {
le circumstances as they appeared to | ,
he accused then he cannot be convicted +
any offence whatever. although they =
ay believe from the evidence that the ! l
'isoncr was not in imminent and immc- !
ate danger of losing his own life or of )
lfering serious bodily harm. the court .
siruCting the Jury that If the prisoner =
ted from honest and reasonable appre-
'nsion Of imminent and immediate dan 4,
n. he must judge for himself Of the -
tent OF the danger that threatened |,
m. -
QUESTION or sELF-DEfENsF. ;
. The court further instructs the jury o
al IL they snail believe from the evil u
nee that the prisoner. under the cir q
instances stated In the fifth jnstruc-
N. killed III. G. Parsons under an II
nest and reasonable apprehension that o
own life was In imminent and Inn o
sdiate danger. or that ne was In immi- G
nj and immediate danger of serious n
Oily injury he was justified in so do Il
7, though such danger was not real: d
Q question for the jury in this case is OF
whether the taking of the life OF &
, deceased might have been safely 10
oided, but whether the defendant UNI b'
+ the circumstances In which he was &,
ced might reasonably have believed II m