The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-06-04

instruction IS as follows:
Gentlemen OF the jury. the court in
strGcis you that from the earliest sstah-
hsnnent OF society and of the family re-
lataon, the father has been charged with
the solemn and sacred duty. as the natural
protector of his wife and children, of
guarding them with tender care against
any violence or injury from any source
whatsoever. his home and his hearthstone
may be defended by him 10 the extent OF
Staying an intending intruder who ruth
leSSiy intends injury or wrong 20 those
whom nature has placed under his pro-
tect!ng care, and ia the growth and devel-
opment of modern society il has come to
De TACT that an unlawful intrusion into
the nome Of q father may be made BY
means Of the telephone used for the pur-
pose OF aIuring or decoyiug away the
children or parent for immoral purposes
anu 10 commit oufreGes upon them and
II you ind from the evidence in this case
that the deceased continued 10 ring or call
up the telephone at the house OF the de-
having been frequently warned not to do
80, and at the same time was enieavoring
10 allure from their fathers house one or
more OF the defendants daughters in or
der TO have criminal intercourse with
them or TO corrupt them. and il YOU fur
Their find that the defendant was aware OF
the acts and designs OF the deceased in
this respect, and If such INVASION OF his
nome was persisted in, and that the de-
ceased could not be prevented from fur
ther invasion OF his home and corrupt.ng
-
end and for the purpose and 10 prevent
such wii!ful and malicious invasion of his
nome ana to prevent deceased from pol
iuting and corrupting or having sexual in
tercourse with his daughters or either of
them, then in such event the defendant
was justified in killing the deceased"
Another interesting instruction was given
by the court follows:
IF the jury believe from the evidence
that the deceased had had criminal inter-
course with defendants daughters Pearl
and Eessie but short time prior To the
shooting, and you further find that the de-
PENDANT only knew of these facts Just
prior 10 the shooting. and that the de-
ceased Was then endeavoring TO decoy and
allure the defendants daughters from the
parental roof by teiephoning 10 defend
ants daughters at defendants hcme IN
order 10 perpetrate further offenSes
against them. and the defendant believed
that unless he forcihly restrained the de-
ceased from MS criminal intentions fur
tner crimes and oujrageS would be perpe-
trated by the deceased against his said
children, then in that event you are IN
structed that the defendant had the right
10 act toward the deceased in the same
manner as IL deceased had personally in
vaded the home of the defendant aud so
acting ne had right 10 arm himself and
go in search OF the defendant in order to
warn him against any further sGch intru-
sion upon his rights q father, and II so
armed the defendant. in search Of the de-
ceased for the purpose aforesaid sudden
~ and Unexpectedly came upon the de
ceased. who then and there assumed a
threatening attitude and the defends n
believed from al the circumstances and
from threats communicated 10 him that
his life was In danger or that his person
VAS subject 20 great injury, acting as an
ordinary and prudent man under all the
circumstances would act, shot ard killed
the deceased. then YOU are instructed that
the defendant Is not guilty"