The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-06-29
LEMUEL DAVIS ACQUITTED.
THE JURY NOT OUT HALF AN HOUR
AFTER THE CHARGE.

Question As TO whether "A Threat
ened Danger Must BE Actual and
Impending or Only Apparent-Ac-
cordinE to Judge FaIIiganfS View
the Case Was Either Murder or
JustiGabIe HOmicide-Davis Not at
All Excited at Any Stage of the
Trial.
Lemuel Davis. who was charged with
the murder OF William Rawls. was ac-
quilted and declared a free man. by the
jury which tried his case. last night about
7:g5 o'clock.
The jury was out scarcely twenty min
utes. The crowd had hardly cleared the
court room. and would not have left had
a verdict been anticipated in so short a
time
Many of those who had listened to Mr..
duBignons closing argument remained in
the court room determined almost 10 await
the verdict in case which had attracted
so much attention. if it did not come IN
til midnight
The hearing opened yesterday morning
at 10 o'clock just where it had been left off
the night before, the state having been
given permission to submit testimony in
rebuttal to the defendants statement.
AIR. J. F. Parrish was the only witness
sworn for this purpose. He testified to
having heard Rawls statement Of the
shooting before he died. The statement
did not differ very materially from that
made by the defendant. Parrish said
Rawls told him Davis called him across
the street on the morning of April 9, and
asked him IL he had been writing letters
TO his wife. He said he replied that he had
not. whereupon Davis drew a pistol and
shot him. He said nothing about Rawls
having called Davis a liar.
He said Rawls told him he did not even
know that Davis was angry with him. Mr..
duBignon objected to a question as to
whether Rawls stated he had had any
wrong relations with Mrs. Davis. on the
ground that the defense was that the kill
ing had taken place to prevent any such
improper relations. Mr.. Parrish said he
saw Rawls about a week before his death
at which time he made a brief statement
TO him about the shooting.
The. letters said to have been taken from
Rawls pocket as he entered Younglove &
Goodman's stables were offered by Mr..
Fraser, but were not received as evidence.
Mr.. i. G.. duBignon, the attorney for the
defense then gave preliminary statement
Of the law as viewed from his standpoint.
This was followed by Solicitor General
Frasers statement of the law OF the case,
and his argument before the jury The
solicitors argument lasted for about three
hours. He quoted numerous cases in his
argument on the law before the court to
show that there was no parallel case TO
this in which the supreme court had sus-
tained the action Of the defendant
The solicitor quoted decisions from the
supreme court reports of the state 10
show that a man was not justifable In
killing another to prevent, as he believed,
the seduction of his wife, unless the dam
ger was actual and impending. He held
that only under pressing circumstances
was the doctrine Of reasonable fear JUST
fable. He held also from decisions that the
killing of one man by another for an at
tempt to debauch his wife was not justi |
fable. Davis, he stated, had taken |
Rawls' life while the denial of the latter
that he had had any improper relations |
with Davis wife was on his lips.
In his argument before the jury he stat |
ed it was unnecessary for him to argue
the question as to whether Rawls died |
from his wounds. The testimony of the |
physicians, he said. was sufficient to show !
that they were directly responsible for his |
death. He ridiculed the idea that Davis |
was crazy when he shot Rawls. This |
feature of the defense he characterized |
as matter of sentiment. He spoke of the |
TACT that the counsel for the defense had |
ten or twelve witnesses summoned, but |
had not used one of them for the reason |
that he wanted the concluding argument
Naafn h 81
said, when concluding arguments have
any weight with juries. He cali |
ed the attention of the Jury to |
the law in the case, and told them all |
the defendant relied on was the point |
that he had acted with reasonable fear |
that Rawls was attempting to and would
seduce his wife. Taking the law of the
case in view, he said the jury could not
do otherwise than find Davis guilty OF
murder, except ii should see fit to recon- |
mend him to imprisonment for life. He
referred to Davis statement that he had
followed Stonewal Jackson for four years
and said, God save Stonewall jackson
If lie had an assassin at his heels all thar
time"
He urged that the defendant was en-
deayoring to attract sentiment In his IA
Yer. He spoke of the fact that Rawls and
Davis had been friends at one time close
friends. He asked for Davis conviction
1t was o'clock when Mr.. duBignon
began his argument on the law in the
case. He reviewed the decision which had
been quoted by Solicitor General Fraser
and quoted others in support of the de-
Tense, and made a clear and complete
argument on the law in the case. His
position was supported by decisions which
he quoted, that it was a husbands right
and duty TO defend his wife's virtue from
any attacks that might be made upon
II. The husband, he said. was given the
right by law to defend a yirtuous wife
This did not mean, he stated, that the
man was justifable In killing another
only when the immoral and improper act
was on the point of taking place, or Just
after it had taken place.
That, he said. would be case in which
a wife had been 'debauched, and the kill
Ing the defense of a debauched wife. The
husbands right to defend virtuous wife
before there had been any improper re-
lations, he said, had never been cues,
toned by the supreme court of any state,
and that was the point on which he
in part based his case.
II was not stated, and there was no tes-
timony to the effect that Rawls had ever
had any improper relations with the wife
of the defendant, but the circumstances