The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-02-06

~ minutes before the aniay to the ell
IecI IHat tie nad Ueen snot at out 10
the saIuens py Smaller, tnaJ ne nao nad
IrouDIe out there Win StIaLer ana lnaL
ne Manted the Witness 20 arrest Sna-
Ter, sucu testimony not beng proper
reDuJLaI ana nIaue in the absence OF
defendant.
Error no. 29-The court erred in al
lowing the same witness TO testify as
10 Lne general reputation OF Eva smith
Ior honesty ana integrity, the witness
Delng incompetent, unaer previous ruI-
mss oil the court 10 testify, anu INSIST
ing tnat the witness must answer yes
or no TO the question as TO reputation
without allowing MN to explain him.
self.
Error No. 30-The evidence was in
sumclent to warrant the verdict IN TINS
case, as there was unContradIcted tes-
tInIony that the deceased 1law klns was
the assaiIer ana was armed with a
deadly weapon, and that defendant
mao reasonable GROUNDS Tor believing
ne was IN DANGER OF great bodily nar4n.
Error No. 51-The court erred IN UNI
oerscoring the Words ''wli1ul, "ueIip-
crate" intent to XIII in instruction
NO. I, giving said words by such un-
derscorIng prominence and weight
wnIcn would amount on the part OF the
court 10 an expression OF MS opinion Oh
the case.
| ing instructions upon the question of
intent, SAID instruction beng framed IN
such a manner as 10 be misleading To
the jury, presupposng that the only
question for determination OF the jury
was the fact whether or not defendant
INTENDED To kill hawkins at the time
he fired the fatal shot, thereby leading
the jury To Deneve that II he lntenoed
TO Kill him he would be guilty as
charged.
Error No. 33-The court erred in Civ
ing instructions presumably defining
what is murder in the first degree,
which instruction misstates the law,
the elements of malice and feloniouS
intent beng entirely eliminated from
the definition.
Error No. 34-The court erred in
giving instruction No. H. the court
thus assuming the functions OF the jury
/ by passing upon question of fact
Error NO 35-The court erred in Civ
ing instruction No. 10, by inserting the
word gestures in SAID instruction,
ana by assuming that in order TO re-
duce the offense from murder to man.
slaughter there should be highly pro-
voking injury inflicted, or an attempt
by the person killed to infiict serious
personal injury, thereby excluding
from the defendant the right to act
upon appearances or gestures which
would lead a reasonable person to be-
leVe that great bodily harm was about
TO be inflicted.
Error No 36-The court erred in Civ
ing instruction No. Il, the court as
Stunning that the act of killing was
committed deliberately and without ad-
equate proyocations, and that ii was
done in malice.
Error No. 37-The court erred in Civ
ing instruction No. Is, which does not
cuntine the instruction to the facts of
the cause and tends TO establish in the
minds of the jury a fact which it was
their province to determine-namely,
any grudge. malice, hatred or ill-Will
| toward the deceased.
Error No. 3S-The court erred in Civ
! ing instruction No. 20 for the reason
that the definition of manslaughter
therein given is not the statutory def
milton.
Error No. 39-The court erred in Civ
ing instruction No. q by insuuctng
the jury that justifable homicide is the
/ killing of a human being in necessary
self-defense' and for the reason that
the Criminal Code defines justifiable
\ homicide and the statutory definition
| was not followed by the court.
| Error No. 40-The court erred in in
/ struction No. "A by using the words
! ordinarily courageous man." instead
/ of the words "a reasonable man., used
/ in the statutes, and in using the words
'or to do anything more than to have
court did not explain to the jury what
| within the meaning of the law, is
4 fair fight and that no such thing as
a fair fight" is known TO or contem-
plated by the law; third that the court
erred in instructing the jury that a de-
PENDANT cannot avail himself of the
claim of necessary self-defense, if any
necessity for such defense was brought
on by himself, such instruction not Civ
/ ing the correct rule OF law with refer
| ence to self-defense, fourth. the court
| erred in instructing IF the jury be-
| lieves from the evidence that the de-
| PENDANT had no reason to believe that
the deceased intended to take his life. :"
Error No. 41-The court erred in in
struction No. %. not being applicable
TO the case and making justifiable
homicide depend upon the absolute ne
| cessity for the killing, and for. the fur
/ Their reason that the court instructed
the jury that it must appear that that
/ the person killed was the assailant.
Error No 42-The court erred in in
struetion No. IS. which misstates the
/ law in that it eliminates from the con
sderation of the jury the fact whether
/ or not person may be justified in
/ killing another who assails him with a
| deadly weapon, even though the per-
son killing, by some trivial provocation,
had brought about the difficulty.
Error No. 43-The court erred in in
! SltlGllDn NO. ~ Ill llldi ~ iIlslIutlGh Inc
! jury that if they found the defendant
| was the aggressor and that the de-
ceased was without fault, then the evil
! dence introduced in the case as TO the
! character of the deceased should have
| no weight in the deliberations of the
| jury. such instruction taking away the
consideration of the fact of defendants
knowledge of the character of Hawkins
as a violent and desperate man, which
should be considered by the jury in
mitigating the offense.
Error No. 44-The court erred in in
struction No. 81, which is ambiguous
| uncertain. ineomprehensible and mis-
leading. for in il the court instructs
the jury that he must first prove he
was attacked before he can show that
the deceased was armed with a deadly
weapon. and that evidence of the fero-
city and vindictiveness of the de-
1 ceased could be received by them only
after the jury believed that the defen-