The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1896-02-11

Iu'S ouSht Iutnel 10 presume In the alb
sence OF sufficient evidence to the con-
trnry that the homicide was Induced
oy the fresh prorocation, and not by the
old grudge. :, =
H. When q man is assaulted in the
course of sudden braIwl or quarrel he
may protect himself by Staying the per-
son who assaults him, ,andeXcuse himself
on the ground Of self defense But be-
fore he can thus excuse himself he must
nave been without fault In bringing the
necessity to kill upon himself under a
reasonable apprehension OF imminert
danger Of death or of serious bodily
harm at the hands of the deceased, un-
less IL further appear that he fairly de-
clared the combat by retreating as far
as he could before he killed the decease
In self defense.
To- The right OF resortine- TO
force upon the principles of self de-
fense. does not arise while the appre-
hended mischief exists in machinations
merely. There must be some act nenac-
Ing present peril or something In the
attending circumstances indica aive of
81 present purpose TO make the appre-
hended attack. The act so done. or
circumstances thus existing must be of
such character as 10 afford a reason
able ground for believing there is dam
ger to commit felony. or to do some
serious bodily harm. and imminent dan
-
mediate execution. Under these cir
cumstances the killing will be justIfiable
although should II afterwards turn out
that appearances were deceptive, and
was, In fact no design to commit
felony or TO do great personal injury
] n such case Il man Is not Obliged to
retreat. but may pursue his adversary
until he has freed himself from all dan
ger. If therefore the jury believe from
the evidence tlt-.t the prisoner ut the
time he shot the deceased did not pro-
yoke the difficulty With the deceased for
the purpose of bringing on u conflict
with him. and that the deceased advanc-
cd on the prisoner. or assumed towards
him a. Observation-Disclosures so as 10 afford
him reasonable ground for believing
that said W. f. Mallory had II design
TO do the prisoner some serious bodily
harm with imminent dangea of carry
Ing such design into immediate eXeCu-
tion they must find the prisoner not
guilty, although they may further be-
lieve that appearances were deceptive,
and that the said Mallory had no de-
sign to do the prisoner any great per-
sonal injury.
Is. II the jury believe from the
evidence that the prisoner did not pr1-
woke the difficulty with the deceased
for the purpose of bringing on a conflict.
and that the facts and circumstances
connected with the killing as they ap-
pcared to the prisoner r. II. Harris
at the time of the killing. constituted a
reasonable ground FIR experimenting
great bodily harm from William r. Nal
lory, although the ground for said ap-
prehension was untrue. unreal the kill
ing Is justitiable and the jury must
find the prisoner not guilty. If the
prisoner acted from reasonable and h,cl-
est conviction he will not be held re-
sponsible o'ritninally for mistakes to the
extent of the actual danger when other
and judicious men would have made
q like mistake.
II. But although the jury should
believe from the evidence that
the prisoner during u quarrel gave the
deceased the wound which caused his
death, and that. at the time he shot the
deceased he had good cause TO believe
and did believe. that the deceased was
making such demonstrations as t,o indi-
cate imminent danger Of death or Sc
rious bodily harm to him at the hands
of the deceased; vet, IL they further be
lieve from the evidence beyond q rea-
sonahle doubt that the quarrel was
provoked and brought on by the pri-
soner by the use of language calculated
and Intended to cause an affrny In order
TO afford him pretext to take the life
of the deceased, or to do him some Sc
ricus bodily harm. the probable re-
suit of which would be death. and that
the prisoner did give the deceased the
fntal wound from which he died as
charged In the indictment, they should
find the prisoner guilty OF murder.
is. If, however, the jury be-
licve from the evidence that the prison
er was not the aggressor. and that the
opprobf2us language used by him, If
he used any. was used with no inten-
tion to provoke q dificnlty, but TO repel
language OF like nature previously
used by the deceased towards him.
and that al the time he shot and killed
the deceased; If from the evidence Won
believe he gave the deceased the fatal
wound from which he died, he had good
cause to believe and did believe thai
the deceased was making such demon
STATIONS towards him as Indicated i'm
mtnent danger of death or serious bodl-
ly harm to him at the hands of the de-
ceased, then the prisoner shot in self
defense, and you should find him nS,t
guilty.
After the instructions had been rivcn
the argument was opened by J,,dre
Drury y. Hinton, who is assisting Mr.
VIM. II. Jones the Commemorative AT
torney. Judge Hinton, who is suffor.
ing from hoarseness, began by SAYING
that he should not use any unparliamen,
tary language, but he should not be
mcaiy mouthed in his prosecution of
the prisoner, whom he should call a muir
derer and assassin. Judge Hinton be-
gan his speech at 0:5S o'clock and cloeed