Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1896-11-19

caused ths death; that good character
would not avail In cases where there
was no doubt: that il the jury did not
believe Woods act killed Hannum, yet
III 1t believed the testimony of the
States witnesses that Woods assaulted
Hannum, they might Under the
statute, find verdict Of guilty of
assault.
Mr.. Hayes requested the court to
charge the jury that .'the exercise of
the will in doing an act 10 necessary to
make it a crime" and that it was
necessary to have shown an evil intent |;
that il the jury believed from the evil
dence that Hannum was attempting to
assault Woods, and Woods pushed him
from him, this was a lawful act on
Woods part; il he used only such force
as was necessary to accomplish this
purpose, and If Hannum fell from such
act, then il the jury believe that the
fall caused Hannum's death, Woods
cannot bs convicted; that the jury
must be satisfied from the evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt that an act
OF Woods caused the death of Han
mum; reasonable doubt must 60 to the
benefit of the prisoner; that evidence
of good character is always admissible.
Deputy Attorney General Cooper ad-
dressed the jury for the State and Mr..
Hayes for the defence. Attorney
General White made the closing
speech, after which court took a
reesss until Friday morning.
The jury in the Woods case was
charged Friday morning by Associate
Judge Cullen. In the the course Of the
charge the Judge said:
"Manslaughter ia the unlawful kill
ing OF another without any malice,
expressed or implied. 1t is OF two
kinds, first. voluntary manslaughter,
where upon a sudden quarrel two
persons fight, and one of them kills the
other; or where man greatly pro-
vokes another by some personal VIC.
lence, &C., and the other Immediately
kills him. Second, involuntary man.
slaughter, as defined by our present
Chief Justice in the case of the State
Va. John Morahan, is where one il
committing an unlawful act tending
to great bodily harm, or in committing
lawful act without proper caution,
or without requisite skill, unguardedl,
or undesignedly kills another.
"The prisoner under this indict
ment, is charged with the offence o.
involuntary manslaughter, coming
under and embracing the crimt
mentioned under the second division o
the definition above given. To consti
tute this crime, the party charged mus
be engaged in an unlawful act wher
the killing occurs, and to determine
this matter, you must first, from TIT
evidence produced be satisfied tha
the prisoner was acting unlawfully; IL
other words. doing that which he hat
no right to do. A person has righ
to put off and eject from his premisei
any one who is acting in a disorderly o.
improper manner, and to effect this ht
| may use sufficient force to accomplish
| this purpose, but il he employ NOR,
than sufficient TO attain this end, b,
| becomes trespasser alb initio, ant
would be liable. as il he we're th,
| original ong-doer, through in th'
beginning he was but exercising tn,
| right every one enjoys under the law
Ii from the evidence you are satisfied
that the prisoner was using onl,
| sufficient force to remove or eject tn,
deceased, if he was behaving in dis
| orderly manner and disturbing hi
| family, and in the exercise of sucl
force he only used sufficient to attain
| that end and death enHued, the prisone
| is not liable, and your verdict SHOULD
be one of acquittal; but il you believ,
| from the evidence that the prisone
violently attacked the deceased ant
| used undue violence, he was acting un
| lawfully and il death ensued from tn,
force and violence used he was guilt,
of involuntary manslaughter as claimed
by the State, and you; should find him
| guilty as he stands Indicted.
After quoting from State vs.. Taylo
and State vs. Townsend, Houston
| Criminal Cases, the Judge continued
"The decisions OF our courts conform
| in every respect to all prior decisions il
this country and England upon thi
subject. In other words, in short
| where party is charged with crime
the offence should be alleged in tn,
indictment, and that must be prove'
to the satisfaction of the jur.
beyond reasonable doubt, becaus
otherwise the prisoner is not prepares
and cannot make the defence tina
would be necessary for him to make.
.'We would further say to you tina
where there is conflict of testimon
you must reconcile it if you can if not
then you are to consider the intelli
gence of witnesses, their opportunitie
and means of information, giving t
such as you deem best qualified.
"The good character Of the accuse
may always be given in evidence. II th
facts proved show conclusively, beyon
reasonable doubt, that the prisoner i
any case is guilty as charged goo
character is Of no avail; but If ther
are doubts in the case which prevent
jury from reaching moral conclusion
then good character asserts itself an
should be taken and considered by th
jury as a preponderating circumstanc
against the guilt of the prisoner. \ y
"If you are satisfied from the evi
dence that the prisoner did unlawful
without legal right, assault th
deceased and inflict the injuries a
alleged in the Indictment from whic
he died and the same caused his deaf
beyond reasonable doubt, your ver
dict should be guilty as indicted. Blu
il the prisoner was but exercising wha
right as we have stated by law he
invested with, used no undue force o
violence beyond what was ,cessary an
are not satisfied beyond REASONABLE
doubt that the death which ensued wa
caused by force, then your verdic
should be not guilty.
"Under the provisions of our statute
party indicted for felony whic
involves an assault, may be acquitte
of the felony and the jury may find
verdict for an assault, but to do thi
you must be satisfied from the evidenc
that the prisoner, with force and vic
lence attempted to do corporal injur
to the deceased from Wantonuess O