The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-04-30

should be no; guilty. The court instructo
the Jury that uniess they believe. beyond
Q reasonable doubt, that tho d0en6Ant ID
ahoosing Wells. did SO With malice. he cam
not be found guilty of murder either =
the first or second degrees.
~ you md from an OF the evidences
thar the officer was not 3ustided In maxi
ing the arrest. Officer Weils, to whom he
turned thu defendant over, was not justf-
Ned In OBTAINING him. ana when the de-
PENDANT killed Wells II WA nos murder
In either the first or second degrees. but
granddaughter only
These are the Instructors asked by tho
defense and given By the court Taken
In connection with the courts Instructions
on tho authority Of police officers in max
Ing arrests. II u evident that the jury dis
regarded the insanity theory OF the De-
Tense and found, In effect. that Officer
Cummings was not Justified In arresting
Philips when he was found prowung
through the halls OF the Price hotel.
Said the court To the jury: "A police
officer has the right to arrest without
warrant a person accused or charged with
the commission Of felony. II he has rea-
sonable ground to believe, and does, In
fact, believe. that a felony has been actu-
ally committed: before he can make the
arrest, however he must have reasonable
ground and probable cause for believing
that tho person whom he arrests commit
ted the felony which he has probable cause
to believe was actually committed. These
two probable causes concurring, he can
arrest legally without a warrant. The
law does not give the officer the right
to arrest withou. q warrant simply be-
cause somebody requests or asks him to
do so. A simple request without anything
else appearing does not amount TO prob
able cause; such q doctrine would destroy
eli responsibility on the part Of officers"
The court Then announced the doctrine
that no officer has the right to arrest
for misdemeanor unless the misdemeanor
WAS committed or attempted to be COM
mitted within hta view. without warrant
III the arrest - Illegal" said the court.
that fact does not authorize the arrested
person TO XIII the arresting officer; but II
the person II innocent OF the offense for
which he II arrested, then. II he kills the
officer. the presumption II that such kill
ting Ii mansiaughter. II malice. however.
either express or implied. exists on the
part Of the dayer. 1t viii be murder in
the second degree. II the killing had the
superadded qualities Of reconciliation and
deliberafion. a. well az malice, II would
be murder In the first degree, provided
the killing was purposely done.
An unlawful or Illegal arrest IL at
least continuing assault. and, II he per-
son Is innocent. such invasion Of his per-
sonai liberty r. what creates the pre-
sumption that the killing is involuntary
granddaughter"
The Closing Scene.
The charge to the jury was finished at
II o'clock. Court adjourned for lunch and
at 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon the jury
returned and asked the court to renew the
instructions as TO the arresting power of
the officer and to again draw the distinc-
ton between murder and mansle tighter
The court re-read largely from the In
structions given in the foregoing.
Immediately upon the withdrawal OF the
jury spectators and attorneys In the court
room began 10 speculate on the probable
nature OF the verdict. The universal opin-
ion was that II would be manslaughter.
The hours slipped away until O'clock
and when BailifY Clark notified the court
that the jury had agreed the talk In the
room ceased and at 4:eS the Jury filed sol
EMMY into their seats.
Gentlemen, have you agreed UPON q
verdict" asked the court.
I'VE have. your honor" responded Fore
man w. r. Ivey.
The court then took the white slip and
after glanciug at IL handed 1t to Clerk
Jenner. The latter sead 1t aloud: I'VE.
the Jury. find the defendant guilty of man
slaughter.
The jury was then discharged from fur
Their consideration OF the case. Attorney
Spriggs shook hands with his client and
smiled as IL he regarded the verdict as a
victory, and the prisoner was taken to
the fail.
How does the verdict suit your" was
asked OF Phillips.
II am satisfied" was the reply.
did you expect a verdict OF guilty Of
MURDER
~ did not allow myself 20 think what
the verdict would be-" was the laconIc
rejonter.
why. didn't you speculate whether you
would probably hang or go freer''
II never once allowed my mind 70 con-
slider the subject"
This remark Is perhaps better fndi-
cation of Phillips character than anything
he could have said. He il stole. and
that he could have kept from himself all
consideration as TO the probable result OF
his trial seems little short OF wonderful.
When left the prison In British
Columbia" said Phillips. II was ready to
get revenge on these who had injured me-
/ did not expect 70 do anything over here,
hut | was determined 10 have revenge.
That Is why l did not want to 20 back -
prison All that Is gone, now. am go
Ing 10 think different: ana going 10 be diff
ferent."
North Pacific Ltbelcd.