Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-12-23

1Ccused relies on necessity. whether real
W SpPareht' 10 Justify the killing OF the
o,,' os .'VSIc. ~ such necessity must not arise
vut OF the Prisoners own misconduct. the
IaW n peing that a man shall not i'm any
.1sSe Justify the killing Of another upon
ee ene ground OF necessity unless he b,. with.
bir,nsdiSS ,dSlt IN bringing that necessity upon
%. mat though the Jury believe from
.nG evidence that the said Moore useC
,loleht and threatening language towards
Ny accused, and that though the said
nio,ni mioore moved his hand as II to draw a
tne said Moore threatened TO sprine on,
~ MS buggy and kill the accused, vel
ne accused had no right 10 kill the said
Moore unless they believe those acts In.
uuCed an honest and reasonable belief
on the mind Of the accused that such kill
Ing was necessary TO save his life or to
protect himself against grieyous bodily
harm. ''N'''
(" The jury are instructed that I'm order
70 convict the accused of the crime al
s1sseu IN the indictment. every material
IdVt necessary to constitute such crime
must be proved beyond a reasonable
uouDt, and II the jury have reasonable
uouDt upon any material fact or element
n,nec,essary TO constitute the crime. it is
their duty 10 give the prisoner the benefit
OF such doubt and acquit him.
THE ACCUsED'S TESTIMONY.
The jury are instructed that the
law allows an accused to testify in his
own behalf. and they have no right arbi-
uarny 10 disregard his testimony upon
the sole ground that he stands before
lhem charged with the commission Of
crime. and they should fairly and i'm
partially consider his testimony and test
II In the same way with that of any
other witness in the case, and determine
from his manner and appearance in testi-
iylng and his capacity 10 discern the
truth and his interest in telling or con-
ealing it how far they should believe
lin.
9. The Court instructs the jury that
she law presumes the accused to be inno-
cent until he is proved guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt and If there is upon
the minds of the jury any reasonable
doubt of the guilt of the accused, the
law makes IL their duty 70 acquit him;
and that mere suspicion or probability OF
his guilt. however strong. is not sufficient
TO convict, nor Is 1t sufficient If the
greater weight or prepOnderance of the
evidence supports the charge in the In
dictment. but to warrant his conviction
his guilt must be proved so clearly that
there is no reasonable theory consistent
with the evidence upon which he can be
innocent.
TO- II the jury believe from the evidence
that the defendant was assaulted by the
deceased in such way as 10 induce in the
mind of the defendant a reasonable and
IN danger of losing his life or suHerlng
great bodily harm. then he was justified
m defending himself, whether the danger
was real or apparent. In SUCH case ac-
.ual or positive danger is not indispensa-
Die TO Justify self-defence. The law con-
siders that men. when threatened with
langer, are obliged 10 Judge from ap-
)earanccs and determine therefrom as TO
lie actual state of things surrounding
hem, and in such cases, II persons act
It'll laFf
ionable evidence, they will not be held
responsible criminally for a mistake as
% the extent of the actual danger.
MOORES LANGUAGE.
II. The Court instructs the jury that if
hey believe from the evidence that the
deceased used violent language towards
he accused and threatened to Kill him
,r do him serious bodily harm, ana mat
he deceased also moved his right hdnd
Jack TO his side or hip as II 10 draw a pis-
oil or other weapon 10 kill the accused
n do him serious bodily harm, and at the
anne time made motion as II TO spring
,ut of the buggy and kill the accused or
10 him serious bodily harm. then If the
ury believe that these acts induced rea-
enable belief in the mind Of the accused
hat he was In immediate danger OF lie
II serious bodily harm. then the Court
nstructs the jury that the accused was
Justified in killing the deceased, ana they
must acquit him.
Il The Jury are instructed that after n
eview and consideration of all the evil
ence in the case there is left upon their
minds a reasonable doubt whether the ac-
used Shot the dece 7cd in self-defence,
S defined in these instructions, then they
oust solve such reasonable doubt in favor
{ the accused and acquit him.
13. The jury are instructed that a rea-
enable doubt is such a doubt IS may be
onestly and reasonably entertained as
o any substantial and material fact es-
ential 10 prove the crime charged. Rea-
enable doubt must be based upon the |
vidence or that Is suggested by the evil
ence or grows out OF the evidence. II |
lust not be an arbitrary doubt without |
vidence 10 sustain II; IL must be serious |
nd substantial in order TO warrant an |
cquittal. 1t must be a doubt of mate |
al fact or facts necessary for the jury |
} believe TO find a verdict of conviction. |
nd not Of immaterial or non-essential |
rcumstances.
THE ARGUMENT BEGINS.
The instructions being concluded, they |
ere handed to the counsel, and Mr.. Lewis
pened the argument, speaking for the |
rosecution. He essayed no elaborate re-
lew Of the caee, but made an eloquent
llk, setting forth that the prisoner had
cen accorded a fair and impartial trial
efOre perhaps 1.-THE most fair and i'm
artial Judge i'm the Commonwealth" In
ne last trial Mr.. Smith, the young law
er said, had left the argument of his
lse and attacked him on the ground of
outh and inexperience, and as he had
OF then the privilege Of a reply, he pro
4eded TO take his first opportunity for
laking response. He did so. too in
lost telling manner, and heaped Goals
T fire on the head of Mr.. Smith, paying
glowing tribute to that lawyers foren-
C ability and admitting both his youth |
nd lack OF experience at the bar.
Pmnging directly into the evidence
hich had been adduced, Mr.. Lewis as
,rted that the homicide was undoubted-
committed as a result Of Moore's in
sbtedness to carter. and described the
fought OF that 50 debt as a pimple which
al ranked in Carter's breast and grown
, the proportions of a cankerous sore,
hich resulted in the firing of those fatal
lOts.
HARD ON SOME WITNESSES.
In discussing the character witnesses
troduced by the defence, Mr.. Lewis said
IA offscourings of the earth had been
ought 10 testify to Moores alleged bad
,aracter. while the very best citizens OF
anchester had testified 10 mis- good cha
cter. He then alluded 10 the inability
the prosecution 10 prove Carter's cha
cter. and belittled the scene which had
en- enacted at Carter's store on the pre-
ding day. when the accused had fallen
, his knees and wept with his family.
a conpared this with what he termed
much sadder scene which was enacted
Manchester three months ago. when
Cf Moore |