Evening star., 1898-06-08
Court Asked for Instructions by
Counsel in Canty Trial.
INTRODUCTION OF BELAfED EVIDENCE
Arguments of the Attorneys on
Points of Law.
J [ RY II AS \ RE ITE

After announcement had been made by
counsel on both sides of the Canty case
today that the evidence was all in Justice
Cole granted the defense's request to re-
open the case for the purpose of introduc-
ing the evidence of Joseph II. Polknhcrn
of whose existence possible witness the
defendants counsel said they were not
aware until late last evening. Briefly
stated. his testimony was for the purpose
of showing apparent carelessness on the
part of Pawnbroker Crosses employees in
complying with the law requiring the
names of purchasers of deadly weapons to
be ascertained and registered by the Ii
censed sellers.
1t was not very material to the main
point in the case. but its Introduction shows
that Justice Cole is affording Canty every
proper chance to save himself from the
gallows Imprisonment.
The prayers of counsel We're also sub
mitted and the remainder of the day was
spent in arguing upon them, the jury,
meantime, enjoying deserved respite from
their trying task.
Prayers for Instructions.
1t being announced that all the evidence
for both sides lad been offered, District At
torney Davis arose and said:
Nov. if Your honor please. we have
eight propositions which we desire to sub
nit
Mr.. Davis ther proceeded to read, with
out argument. the following prayers for the
prosecution:
''First-It is 4 conceded fact in this case
that the defendant slot and killed the de-
ceased at the time and place and with the
weapon described in the Indictment the
question 20 be dc dCtermined by the jury upon
the evidence is whether such killing was
criminal or exCCsable. The prosecution
claims that it was criminal, and the de-
fendant claims that il " as excusable. Muir
Ger is the offense with which the defendant
Is charged, and this offense is committed
when a person of sound memory and dis
cretion unlawfuIly and feioniously kills p
HI man being in the peace of the UniteI
States with malice aforethought. either ex-
press or imrlied; and accordingly. If the
jury find from the evidence that the de-
fendant killed the deceased without just
provocation or excuse. hereafter de-
fired. the law implies malice in the killing.
and the defendant should be found guilty
As indicted.
THE defense in the case is self-defense
which exists when one without fault is
sailed by another under such circumstances
as furnish reasonable ground for appre-
EeLding q design to take the life of the
former. or to do him some great bodily
harm. and there is reasonable ground for
believing the danger imminent that sucn
design Will he accomplished; in which case
the one asSailed may safely act upon the
appearances and kill the assailant if that
be necessary TO avoid the apprehended dan
ll.
the jury frd from the evidence that the
defendant was so assailed and under such
circumstances killed the deceased. but not
otherwise. the Jury should aruuit tho de-
fendant; but the jury is further instructed
that the killii & of the deceased by the de-
1Cndant Is not excused by the mere fact
tfat the defendant claims that he was so
assalied and that he believed himself to be
In the danger assumed. aud If the Jury be-
Htve from the evidence that the defendant
gid not have reasonable ground to appre-
mend danger n not in 20, -,
estiy apprehend it, but acted upon alleged
appearances at the time of the killing with
out reasonable ground for such apprehen-
sion. and not believing that such alleged
appearances really indicated or imported
sCch danger. but intending to avail himself
OF the same only as pretended excuse for
the killing. the defendant is guilty as
though no sucn appearances existed. ard
the jury should so find.
Use of Words rs Justfficatfon.
Second-The use merely Of words Io
after how offer sive or insulting does no.
justify an assault by the person to whom
they are used upon the person using them
Heither does the threatened use cf such
w"rds on future occasions justify such as
sault: the jury are accordingly instructed
that If they shall find from the evidence tho
deceased on the day preceding the killing
had used offensive and insulting words 10
the defendant on the public street and in
me nearing OF PERSONS standing by and
words 10 the defendant. in the presenc.
ana nearing of the public, whenever and
wherever ne might subsequently meet the
Ctlendant. ana should further find that
when the deceased and the defendant met
on the day of the killing the defendant be
H'NeI lhat the deceased then and pur-
st%nt to such threat intended to repeat
Such offensive and insulting words in the
rearing or persons present, and that the
GtIehoant; eithe~ in anger at such use ana
threatened use of such offensive and in
to
tHereof, or for both reasons shot the de-
ceased intending to kill him or do him
e;edt boiily harm. such circumstance,
aIone arord TO excuse for such shootinp
and the jury should find the dnfendant
guilty as indicted.
Further Definition
4hlrd. The jury is instructed that the
Use merely of words no matter how often
sNe vi insulting does not Justify n assault
by the person to whom they are used upon
the person using them, and similarly that
the threatened use of such words does nor
Justify such assault. The jury is accord
lnGiy instructed that if il find from the
evidence that at the time of the fatal en-
counter between the defendant and the
deceaSed. the deceased used to the defend
ant Offensive and insulting Language. with
OUT any act accompanying the same and
indicating his present readiness and pur-
pose To iniiict upon the defendant either
death or great bodily harm the defendant
was not justified in assaulting the deceased
Nhether Tor the purpose of chastfsement
or 10 take his life; and if the Jury find
from the evidence that. under the circum
stances assumed. the defendant in anger
AZ the use by the deceased of such often
slNe or insulting words took the life of the
deceased. the defendant is guilty as indct-
cd and the jury should so find. And the de
PENDANT is so guilty notwithstanding that
the jury should further find from the evil
oence that the deceased had on his person
or in his hand deadly weapon without
making any demons tration thereof or there
which afforded . H1fa 1lr,t
able grounds to believe, and upon which
grounds the defendant in good faith be-
lieyed. that the deceased intended to take
his life or 10 do him great bodily HARM
Right of Defense.
when n person is unlawfully assailed by
another. he has the right to defend him
se.f against his assailant and TO use suffi-
cicnt force to make his defense effectuaI
But the law never permits the unnecessary
use OF force; wherefore, when a man Is
aSSailed h= must not use force to defend
himself il he can otherwise protect him