The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1899-12-06
THE DOHLRTY MURDER TRIAL

| argument Tor the respondent Tuesday after
noon, he made an earnest. eloquent plea for
the life of his client that commanded the
closest attention Of the jury, court, bar and
spectators.
| w. A. Lord closed the arguments with
mastery plea from the standpoint of the
State II was regarded by many as one Of
| the most powerful arguments ever delivered
before Washington county jury. The re
spondent writhed under portions of it, but
kept his outward composure.
The charge to the jury in the Doherty
murder Gaze WAS delivered this morning by
Judge Watson. The court first read the in.
dictment to the jury, and explained care
fully the meaning of the term reasonable
| doubt, that must govern them in arriving
at a verdict. In considering the evidence
OF the respondent the jury was cautioned
that his interest in the case should be con-
sdered. He is on trial for his llfe and the
verdict OF the jury may deprive him of that
| life, or imprison him for life or for d term OF
| years.
Judge Watson referred to a certain wit
ness who 1t is claimed, had testified here
| differently from what he did before the pre-
liminary hearing at Waterbury. Such evil
dence affects the credibility of the witness,
and it is for the jury to say how much
weight should be gwen it.
The different degrees of murder were
then clearly explained. To find the re-
spondent guilty of murder in the first de-
gree the jury must be satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt that Murphy came to his
death by pistol ball shot by the respond
emit, with malice aforethought, and with
willful premeditation.
The law presumes that person realizes
what the result of any act will be. TIA
person realizes that the result of an act will
be killing human being, that would con-
stitute murder, The question Of intent in
this case was considered at leng b, includ-
ing the conduct Of Doherty and Murphy
towards each other before the shooting the
purchase OF the revolver and the purpose
for which this was done, what was said be-
tween the respondent and Murphy Just be-
fore the shooting, in fact all the immediate
circumstances surrounding the shooting
were referred to, as tending to show the
intent Of the respondent as he fired the IA
tai shot. If you are satisfied from al the
evidence that the respondent Intentionally
killed Murphy, then the question comes,
Was the killing premedtated?
The law requires if you find a verdict of
murder in the first degree, you shall find
willful, malicious and pTemeditated pur-
pose, but it does not require you to fiud this
generalization existed for any length of
time. IT, as he testified he had no inten.
ton to kill Murphy when he went into the
barn or came out OF the barn, there was
ample time for him between the going ont
from the barn and the shooting to form such
an intention. II you find such an intention
with malice aforethought, it would be muir
/ NSA - NIS hAoN NSBAoOt anu yOuI N6IulCU
should BE- accordingly.
Murder in the second degree, killing with
malice aforethought, but without premedi-
tation, was next considered. The jury was
instructed to return verdict of murder in
the second degree, provided they we're sat
ished beyond a reasonable doubt that
Doberty killed Murphy with malice afore-
thought but without premeditation
Manslaughter is the felonious killing OF
another without malice. II you fail to find
the respondent guilty of murder in the
| first or second degree, you will consider the
question of manslaughter. No words, how
ever opprobrous, lstify manslaughter, In
this case, IL the killing was the result of an
irresistible passion, that gave no time for the
passions to cool and reason to assert itself,
II there was no malice and no premedita-
ton, then the respondent is not guilty of
murder, but is guilty of manslaughter b
If the heat of blood was caused by mere
words, whe Their deserved or not, it was
murder and not manslaughter Words
alone never justify manslaughter
The respondent claims that he took Muir.
phys life in self.defence. Such an extreme
defence cannot be justified until the neces-
sity for self.defence has been averted. II
Murphy and the respondent had trouble.
and i Murphy had threatened Doherty, ii
you lind that when they went to the barn
Murphy was unarmed and the respondent
armed with revolver, that Murphy did no
overt act towards the respondent the re-
spondent had no right to shoot Murphy.
The respondent had no right to use force To
defend himself from injury If he had any
other means Of defence. When the respond.
ent was away from Murphy it was his duty
to keep away from him; he should have
Kept away from Murphy. II Murphy
sought to kill the respondent or do him
great bodily harm, the respondent had a
right to defend himself, otherwise he had
no right to rush out OF the barn and shoot
Murphy.
The flight of the respondent after the
shooting, which has not been explained. ia
an evidence OF his guilt and should be 40
considered. The claim that there was no
motive for the crime should be considered
as In favor OF the respondent.
Ii you find that Murphy's death was the
| result OF Doherty's shot, the time that
elapsed between the shooting and Murphy's
| death IL OF NJ consequence.
| Judge Watson's charge occupied an hour
in its delivery. The jury took the case
| shortly after ten o'clock.
The jury came In shortly after two o clock.
| The respondent was pale as a ghost, as, In
| response to a summons from the clerk. he
arose and faced the jury. s. W. Cole OF
Mansfield the foreman, announced the YER
dict, Guilty of murder in the first degree"
| in u firm voice. AT the request OF E, H.
Deavitt, counsel for the respondent. the
| jury was polled.
/ Judge Watson instructed the clerk to en-.
| ter judgment on verdict, exceptions NV
| respondent. Sentence was deferred. IL IL
| probable the case will go to Supreme Court
| al the January term. In the mean ime
Doherty will remain in Jail at Montpelier,