The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-12-30
POINTS N oDNNElLl CASE.
Fun Text Of the Answer Gfsen by
J0hn r.. Humphrtcs to the Hypo-
fhefieaI Question - Would lie
second DegRee SF Massissghtsr.

tGG kFPl[Ext4BAsA4 t4<sSsBs44 fl&l s0Afs.s~
Intelligence IN ors@T 20 s1su Hight upon tee
Conn@Ila Case was published yes-
terdays has carefully prepared tAe f0A iexe
Of tie Interview bed with him and sur
United H. Judge Hamghrsss' bang expert
enee as prosecutor has made nlna ex1sEs~
tionaisy familiar with fhe crfmssai Law,
and the ;;lssFEssw which IS pFesSsfssi here
with. Is clear ard direct IN its d.scsssssora
o. the question al issus. said Judge HSrs-
pares.
1T ought not at this time 10 BE- hard for
fhs iega! fraternity 20 1ectSe the hypo-
thefscal question proDoaEaass ~ tsae Past
insesllgeDceF Alright
Tfse Question - as follows
"a and II arc enemies and nave sntulgrd
In Violent language 10 other psrsafs about
wfiIe previously placed q pss;e. IN hss
pOchsts ffcv0kez quarrel and assa ulss
y BY siappang or striking Lsns- but with
cut fixed purpose Of furnishing himself
Dretsxt f9f murder, but In the heat OF pas
mon. Thersu2oa r. s~szes A and throws
him 10 The ground. and stands oveT A with
him with 1t, ard A. b%Iiesing thar hls afe
= IN danger. Of tEaf he u IN danger % xfsaS
bodily hurt, araws his pisic. and Kills u.
IL the homicide jDstiiiabser
'sIn the frat place Is engaged IN Arr nn-
lawful ACT. which unlawful act IL Il vto-
lation OF section 1894 Of Bailinser's Gods:
Aiso. hi provoking quarrel winch violates
section 1855 Of the Code.
''The violation Of section 1866 is merged
IN the violation Of section 3.tSi ana The
violation OF 1854 IL merged either in the
violation Of section 5.uss or 045 OF the Code.
state w. Hatsahaugi,. 81 Indiana, 2ea.
Under the Hypothetical question A was
not ofiiy in tie wrong ia provoking quar-
rel and making an assault. but he was
doing unga VITAL act Keeping la mind
the fact that A vas acting Illegally IN PFC
vok.ng quarrel and also Ia assaaiting b,
IL viii moi b. hard TO understand the law
applicable 10 the case. In the Law Of
Homicide. by Kerr. section rs. the rule
.Whsrs one Illegally provokes an as
sauit or presses another into combat he
win not be justified in killing sneh other.
no matter 10 what extresnsies hs may be
reduaesi' In the same work. on page Dol.
* - said: One who kills another under
an apprehension of death or great bodily
harm from an assault must have been free
from fault In bringing on the difficulty. II
he would toniend that tn. homicide was
excusaasr This viii furnish basis for
logical reasoning In the premises Ii \ can
justify himself on the ground Of s.if-de-
Tense in killing Is Under the circumstances
stated then A has it IN bic own power to
violate section 7.05a and 1865 OF the Grim
inai Code OF this state and escape punish
ment for their violation by killing b. which
4 contrary 10 all logic and ali reason.
rrecsA~nts Against JuatiAca tiOn.
I'm The case OF sullivan VIZ. State, 70 8.
W, as7. the court decided that the follow
ing Instruction, under similar facts.
the law: III the defendant brought on and
began fhe difficulty. he could not Justify
by attempt - kin Realty on The ground
OF sef-defenses for. although defendant
began the difficulty with no Intent 10 Kill
or 70 do bodily injury 70 Beatty; yet. s.ftes- =
yards, N the course q ths difnenity ne
own life. he cannot justify his act by Claim
Ing II was done In seif-dsfenee.'
III, the case Of rsonle vs.. Button. the
approval the following from Hals's Pleas
OF the Crown. But II a assaults u first.
and upon that ASSAULT u assaults A. and
90 fhAf IN
the wall or other non ultra without danger
OF his Me. nay though A falls upon the
ground upon the assault Of ~. and then A
kills Is. this shall not be Interpreted 10 be
sc defendendo.
'afhe supreme court Of California says
sossrn, s the above statsmsnt The FORE
season that. though vas upon the ground
and in great danger Of his life al the time
he killed y. stiii he was the assaiian', and
81 the time Of the killing had done moth
lug To indicate to the mind OF - that ha
had In coed faith withdrawn from the com
pal; s and u.a, was ne longer In = asSSss
vi. the court states: The taking of hu-
man life Is matter ut such deep s.gntfi-
canee THAI i cannot he Justified BY some
slight appearance OF danger. and II, tho
Defendant was In fault In creating the
situation or daneer, his righ; Of selfsds-
ienss does nos arise anii he shall have
done all that reasonably could be done by
him TO avoid thu necessity of killing his
assailant IN order 10 protect himself
A Question of Degree.
In the case of Hoykin VS. People. u Pa
ellie RED. AZ. the rule IL laid down thus:
~. however. this wTgmxrul intent or ae;
was not feiontoux. but merely done with
the intent 10 commit i simple assault or
r snisarine',,'ef. ana n me s,ruksie thnz
ff. while Il Is true he would NOT be
cused or justified, therefore not entitled Ia
an aeau.tssI yet the defense may proper
" be inserpossti as legitimate aud As bear
ting upon ths degree az the homicide. n
aid the jury In determining whether IL viii
be murder snausIauxhter.
IN tho casa Of Hayes Territory 50
Pacific, 80. tbs rule IL stated thus. The
aggrasscr~-css. who slflke- another. and
Whereby brings on a combat. or one who
by the use OF vile ard appronious language
almost as surely brings on a conalst-ls
hot clothed with the g.aat 81 seif-ssefensc
10 long as he continues 10 tssFslst IN b.s
own wfonsaniae lie must discontinue his
own assault. whether hy vsalence or hy
word before she law os necessity SAYS that
he can strike down lis asssilant'
Retreat Is Necessary.
I'm the case % Story ~. State, - rns
page ais after a review % all tho mol
ern authorities up .o that time tae court
lays down the rnss, 81 substance, ,hus; II
person voluntarily aud unlaRfuip enters
into IA mutual combat ~ prpSoksn q con-
hics by his Own wrongful act. as has no
right 30 .ake his aasef&aFys lite.' The
thai the man who takes aaot8ssfss life mus,
be himself without fault, ee he cannot ga
ACQUITTED Hflon the ground ~ seK.siescnse
Where both parties are ia the wrong. sssss-
tAsr ran Justify the taking OF life Without
tssxeatinr
"A auo,atsen fren Afr nssshs4.s Frs.
Criminal Law. section SO IL directly ia
points w hsn enc. eontFasy "a ~ original
expectation. fssie hsnas~if 81 Aotty pressed
~ III render TIA killing II TIE ether neoex.
ssfy 60 save bis own lie, b. Ia satity of
= fesanioes homicide * he kits k.frs uttesa
he mas. seiuslls puts into exercise this
eNty of Withdrawing from he place
1T viii he saen from tns above anAfA.
items ana fTsm the authorities sssg4 tA@t
rndeT Ere hyyo;As;seai auess!as A wogsA
BE sgi,iy Of a seienseus hesyslcstss As 20
TIE 1eEtce 90 that xn.at. Il wsItt L. a
question far shs tnry uTistsy All 81 tina et~.
eslsnstanees Il ccBjd aas sg lrwx sfsan nsa n
slaughter. ara probably would te aaurssas =
tAe acpnd degree. hfst al 1ssSsxssesAAa AS
f%etfg TIE sagy - scQait WndsF tse sse.s
stated IN tAa hypothetical 5ugSgisn ws,..ss
lv exactly the reverse ~ aaa ean4Ssry 4,
law IL Will 10 se%a iaas SAe aeastiseaG Ia
y ess1as tire r4eEas9fs r4neaS %saAs f~sS y ~
ifsf4 punishment aA Gsg AnA Eas-