The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1901-03-22
The Court Charges the Jury.

w men JuU ATTORNEY 1eDtIdl DdO
closed his impassioned appeal to the
jury, all eyes were at once turned upon
His Honor Judge Holding, and intense
silence prevailed; men standing in intent
attitudes, with careening necks and
hands behind their ears to hear every
woro Of his exposition Of the law of the
case.
The Court instructed the jury in
reference to the defendants second plea
that is, the plea of once in jeopardy.
He explained to them that the first in
dctment charged the defendant with
the murder of J ID. Godfrey; that the
defendant at a former day Of this term
had been arraigned upon this indict-
ment and pleaded not guilty, and that
jury had been impaneed and sworn to
try the defendant, and that at this stage
of the proceedings, the Court, upon the
motion of the Attorney General had en-
tered an order of nole prosequi and dis
charged the jury: that this operated as
an acquittal of defendant IN that case,
but did not necessarily operate as bar
to the prosecution I'm Ter the second in.
dictment That to entitJe the defend
ant to the benefit of this plea the offense
charged in the first indictment must not
only be the same, but the first indict-
ment must be a valid Indictment. The
true test" said the Court, sis whether
the proof sufficient to support the
second Indictment would have procured
a legal conviction upon the first indict
ment."
The Court then explained that the
second indictment charged the de,
( PENDANT with the murder of j. G. God
frey, alias Professor Godfrey. That
upon the face of these two indictments
/ the otfenses were not the same, and that
no legal conviction could have been had
under the first Indictment for the kill
/ ing of ]. G. Godfrey, unless the jury
should find the last avermept in de-
/ PENDANTS plea to be true, towit: that
/ j. G. Godfrey was known in the com.
munity as j. d. Godfrey; that this was
! the only thing for them to determine on
| this second plea, and that in as much as
| the defendant had made no effort to
show that j G.. Godfrey was known in
the community as j. D. Godfrey, but
/ that on the contrary the undisputed
proof of the State Was that he was not
50 known, the Court, therefore, in
stracted the jury to find this second
/ plea against the defendant.
/ The Court then said to the jury that
/ the other plea was that of mot guilty. "
/ That the indictment embraced the of.
lenses of murder in the first degree,
murder in the second degree, voluntary
mansaughter and involuntary man
slaughter, and the law as to each of
these otfenses was then defined and ex
| planned.
| The jury were then told that it was
| admitted that the defendant had leased
| the Fly farm, and that he was in pos
session of it; that then Godfrey had nc
right to 90 upon it without the permits
| sion IF I homas. and if he did so he was
trespasser and Thomas had the right to
put him off; but that he Thomas
should first request the defendant to
get off before using force, unless
Thomas had previously expressly for
hidden him to come upon the place, in
which case no further request was nee
essary; that while Thomas had the right
in the first instance to use force to the
extent of simple assault and battery in
ejectlng Godfrey. be had no right Ia the
first instance, to use such force as tc
threaten Godfrey with death or great
bodily hahn, and that if in the first in.
stance Thomas used such force as tc
threaten Godfrey with death or great
bodily harm, or to create in his mind a
reasonable belief of such danger, then
Godfrey had the right to defend himself
even to the taking of the life of Thomas
But if Thomas In the first instance
did not use such force as to threaten
Godfrey with death or great bodily
harm, then Godfrey should not have re
sisted, but retired; and if he did resist
Thomas would be justified in usins such
force as might be necessary to overcome
such resistance.
The Court then applied the law to the
facts upon the several contentious of the
State and the defendant, saying that the
rights of the defendant depended upor
the nature and character of his advance
and assault, if any, upon Godfrey, anC
of Godfrey's counter assault, if any
upon him; that if defendant made al
assault upon deceased of such char
acter and violence as to threaten de
ceased with death or great BODILY
harm, or created in the mind of de
ceased a reasonable and well-foundeC
fear of snch injury, then the deceased
would be justified in making a counter
deadly assault in defense; and, there
fore, the defendant mast remove thu
necessity for it, and make that fac
known to the deceased before his owl
right Of self-defense can exist; while OF
the other hand. If the defendant die
not make an assault of such characte
and violence as threatened the deceased
with death or great bodily harm, or Il
create in his mind a reasonable belle
that he was so threatened, then tn
deceased would be in the wrong in max
ing a counter deadly assault and if h
does so with such suddenness and fierce
ness as to deprive the defendant of tn
opportunity 10 decline a deadly strife
then the defendant would be justifie'
in killing in self defense.
IL the deceased when first approache
by the defendant resisted in such man
ner as 10 warrant the defendant in max
ing an assault upon him, then he IN
defendantl had right 10 follow up tina
assault as long as the danger and re
sistance continued, but no longer.