Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-06-09
PRAYERS GRANTED
Court Announces Instructions in the
CAVITY Case.
TIE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL BEGUN
Defendant Arrayed in Suit Worn
When He Killed Rye.
INCIDENTS OF THE DAY

During the recess in the Canty trial today
Mrs. Canty dressed her husband Will. he
waited in the cell below Criminal Court No.
1, in the suit Of clothes which he wore when
he shot George Rye. and. wearing them, he
later went before the jury and showed
them how he had carried the pistol in the
front pocket instead of the hip pocket on
the day of the homicide.
Canty bore the ordeal without hinching,
and 1t afforded the only strong dramatic in
cident in & day devoted to the final adj
dresses to the jury. Although the reason
Canty gave for carrying the weapon in that
pocket was that the other was too small, 1t
was demonstrated today that the weapon
could enter the hip pocket as well as the
front pocket.
The Prayers Granted.
Justice Cole. at the opening of court this
morning, announced his decision with re-
gard to the prayers of counsel. Those for
the prosecution which We're granted are:
!. 1t is conceded fact in this case that
the defendant shot and killed the deceased
at the time and place and with the weapon
described in the indictment: the question
to be determined by the jury upon the evil
or eXcusable. The prosecution claims that
it was criminal and the defendant claims
that 1t was excusable. Murder Is the Of
Tense with which the defendant is charged.
and this offense is committed when a per-
son of sound memory and discretion I'M
lawfully and feloniously kills human be-
ing in the peace of the United States with
malice aforethought, either express or i'm
piled; and. accordingly, If the jury find
from the evidence, beyond reasonable
doubt, that the defendant killed the de-
ceased without just provocation or excuse.
as hereafter defined, the law defines NAL
ice in the killing, and the defendant should
be found guilty as indicted.
SeIf-Defcnse.
The defense in the case is self-defense.
which exists when one without fault in
bringing on the encounter is assailed or
threatened with assault by another under
such circumstances as furnish reasonable
ground for experimenting 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 such design will be accomplished, in
which case the one assailed may safely
act upon the appearance and kill the as
saiant If that be necessary to avoid the
apprehended danger, but not otherwise;
and, accordingly, if the jury find from the
evidence that the defendant was SO assailed
or threatened with assault, and under such
circumstances killed the deceased but not
otherwise, the jury should acquit the de-
PENDANT; but the jury is further instructed
that the killing of the deceased by the de-
PENDANT is not excused by the mere fact
that the defendant claims he was so as
sailed or threatened and that he believed
himself to be in the danger assumed, anu
If the jury believe from the evidence that
the defendant did not have reasonable
ground to apprehend such danger. and did
not, in fact, honestly apprehend it, but acted
upon alleged appearances at the time of
the killing without reasonable ground for
such apprehension, and not believing that
such alleged appearances really indicated
imported such danger. but intending to
avail himself of the same only as pre-
tended excuse for the killing, the defend
ant is guilty, though no such appear
ances existed, and the jury should SO find.
The Use of Words.
g. The use merely Of words, no matter
how offensive or insulting. does not justify
an assault by the person to whom they are
used upon the person using them, neither
does the threatened use of such words on
future occasions justify such assault; the
jury Is accordingly instructed that If it
shall find from the evidence the deceased.
on the day preceding the killing, had used
offensive and insulting words to the de-
PENDANT on the public street and in the
hearing of persons standing by and pass
ing and had threatened to use similar
words to the defendant, in the presence
and hearing of the public. whenever and
wherever he might subsequently meet the
defendant, and should further find that
when the deceased and the defendant met
the day of the killing, the defendant
believed that the deceased then, and pur-
suant to such threat, intended to repeat
such offensive and insulting words In the
hearing of pei sons present, and that the
defendant either in anger at such use and
threatened use of such offensive and in
sultng words, or to prevent the repetition
thereof. for both reasons, and not in
self defense. already defined, shot the
deceased int ndiUg to kill him or to do
him great bodily harm, such crcumstanc IS
alone afford no excuse for such shooting,
and the jury should fId the defendant
guilty as indicted.
Offensive and Insulting Language.
g. The jury is instructed that the
merely of words, no matter how Offensive
or insulting, does not justify an assault by
the person to whom they are used upon the
person usiIg them and similarly that the
threatened use of such words does not JUS
tfy such assault. The jury is accordingly
instructed that if il find, frcm the evidence,
that at the time of the fatal encounter be-
tween the defendant and the deceased the
decedseu used to the defendant offensive
and insulting language, without any act or
demonstration or movement accompany inE
the same and Indicating his present read.-
ness and purpose to infiict upon the de-
fendant either death or great bodily harm,
the defendant not justified in assault
ing the deceased, whether LOT inc PURPOSE
of chastiSement to take his life; and II
the jury find from the evidence that under
the circumstances assumed, the defendant,
in anger at the use by the deceased of such
offensive or insulting words alone, took the
Efe of the deceased, and not in self-defenso,
as already defined, the defendant is guilty
as indicted, and the jury should so find.
And the defendant is guilty, nOtwith-
standing that the jury should further find
from the evidence that the deceased had on
his person a deadly weapon, without maxi
ing any demonstration which afforded the
defendant reasonable grounds to believe,
and upon which grounds the defendant In
good faith believed, that the deceased in
tended to take his life or to do him great
bodily harm.
Defendants Rights.
4. When a person is unlawfully assailed
by another he has the right to defend him
self against his assailant and to use suffi-
cient force to make his defense effectual.
But the law never permits the unnecessary
use of force; wherefore, when man is as
sailed he must not use force to defend him