The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-02-06
ANACONDA STANDARD: SUNDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY

for the consideration of the jury. IL for
no other reason, TO reduce the degree ~
the offense.
Error No. 49-The court erred in Civ
ing said instructions Tor the reason
that they were inconsistent with one
another and inconsistent with instrue-
tons requested - the defendant. and
conflicting with one another.
Error No 50--The court erred in Civ
ing the instructions of the state sepa-
rately and in giving the instructions
requested by the defendant separately
with the statement to the jury that
they We're requested by the defendant.
the manner of giving instructions be-
ing prejudicial in that it gave undue
and unequal weight to those given by
the state, and for the further reason
that as soon as the court concluded to
give such instructions they became the
instructions of the court.
Error No. 51-The court erred in mod
flying instruction ~, requested by de-
PENDANT the instruction as originally
presented stating the law correctly,
which ii does not do as modified. that
as modified Ii only justified a person
in killing an assailant when it was inn
possible for him to retreat.
Error No. SIN striking from in
struction 43 the words and you must
acquit him and your verdict must not
be guilty" therefore taking from the
jury the instruction as to what their
verdict must be, If they found the facts
as stated in the instruction.
Error No. 53--In refusing to give in
struction 40 as requested by defend
ant.
Error No. SIN refusing to give in
struction 40 as asked by defendant and
inserting in 1t the words if you find.
from the evidence. that the deceased
was of a desperate character thus in
must show the deceased to be a man of
desperate character and taking from
the jury the right to act upon the evil
dence which tended to show that de-
PENDANT believed deceased TO be a man
of desperate character.
Error No. 55-In modifying instruc-
ton 50 by striking out the words and
unless you are satisfied upon that ana
that alone, then you should aequit the
defendant and your verdict be not
guilty" thereby refusing to instruct
the jury that they must determine the
guilt or innocence of the defendant on
the evidence introduced alone
Error No. 56-In modifying instruc-
ton 81 by inserting the words only
considering that he is the defendant
and the enormity of the crime with
which he is charged
Error No. SIN inserting the words
in instruction 5S and of malice afore-
thought" thereby making the instruc-
ton incorrect in law and prejudicial
against the defendant.
Error No. 5S--In refusing refused in
struction No. /, which properly states
the law as To justification.
Error No 59-In refusing No. of the
refused instruction as To reasonable
doubt.
Error No. 60-In refusing No. of the
refused instruction as to motive.
Error Nh film refusing No 4 of re-
fused instructions as to the time in
which a person assailed is justified in
acting.
Error No. 62-In refusing No. of the
refused instructions as to the crcum-
stances under which a person is just-
fed in acting upon appearances.
Error No. 63-In refusing No. OF the
refused instructions as to the purpose
for which they should consider the
evidence that the witness, Eva Smith,
used a razor upon the body of the de-
ceased.
Error No 64--In refusing No. of the
refused instructions as TO threats pre-
Viously made by the deceased.
Error No 65--In refusing No. of the
refused instructions as to the presump-
ton of innocence which the law gives
the defendant.
Error No 66-Further. that each and
all of said refused instructions correct
ly state the law and directly apply To
the circumstances proven in evidence
on trial. said instructions not being
given in any instruction given on be-
half of the state
Error No. G7-The court erred in or
dering the fling and recording of the
verdict arrived at by the jury in this
case for the reason that said verdict
was against the law and the evidence.