The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-09-30
WILLIAMS vs. THE STATE.

W1Ll(AAnAO AhH
 cult Court of Bibb.
 HomSiSs cs0res f to rdsT 19e be1a all tTa ,Sa evidence in the case including the testimony of the defendant, showed that the defendant was guilty of murder. and the evidence fur ther showed a motive for the commission of the deed, that the defendant acted upon said motive. that he determined on the killing be- forehand, and made preparations therefor, and that there was no Justification or excuse for the killing, 1t is not error for the court to in that If you believe all the evidence in thls case beyond a reasonable doubt. you must
 q Same; same.-In such a case, where the evidence tended to show that the defendant and hs wife % bSs several sT antb x bse nr ds to the killing. ravished the defendants wife. and that in carrying our said conspiracy the wife lured the deceased to the defendants house by writing him a note, and that 1t was while the deceased was at the defendants Killed, and further that the fatal shot was fired as the deceased was walking away from the defendants house with his back towards the defendant, the court does not commit an error in instructing the jury. upon the request of the solicitor for the State, that If the reasonable doubt that the deceased, several months prior to the killing, did have sexual intercourse with the defendants wife. with or without force and that the defendant in Bibb County. Alabama, and before the nnding ot this indictment, killed the deceased by de- coying him to his tdefendant'sl house. and by lying in wait for him, account of such H. Iicit intercourse between deceased and defen- iants wife, then defendant is guilty of m%ur- % der in the first degree, and 1t is the sworn iuty of the jury to so find their verdict.
 3. Ruling on charges: how presented Tor Ie- view.-The statute which dispenses with tne necessity in civil and criminal cases or notihs exceptions to rulings on charges t tS Code Section 6 8 makes it essential to tne presentation of such ruling on appeal, m & the absence of exceptions thereto, that such rui- ings De assigned as error. ..,,a.s, ,o ,urv charge of court.-On a trial under , an IhVios t.. ment for murder. where It was shown s tna! several months before the killing tne uece1Sso s St had debauched the defendant Mlls, out It1 r1e evidence in the case, including the delehdAnt testimony. shows that the defenaant WaS suii.s . of murder If the counsel for the detenuant IT their argument to the Jury, so ,o " 1a soat the limit of legitimate argument ts,. an " SSeN @ 10 impress upon the jury that tne kullhk va ustifable by reason of such debauchery ana tate that the defendant was simpiy protecuns .itizaps of the county where the killing oc- ,rlrred and that he had done noth!hE more han what every other man on the Jury woul l have done and the entire @ th v. {1Sa of inc iarv if is proper and free from obtec- ton or error for the trial court, m us BeherAi charge to the jury, to instruct mem as tolloWs: :: Courts are established to administer the law and enforce tts execution. The law Is the only standard by which judges and Jurors can De governed; and in considering their verdict Jurors should be goveInsa The e or, as nIntn sIven ton to the life liberty and property or the citi- zen is in a prompt, honest and impartial en- forcement of the laT and ,sssa 1STles 'H9d tSs R then the law is useless. and the courthouses and jaiis might as wen ee torn down: the offices of judge cerk snd shertn and all ten Of the Ia1F be abolished, and save the people the tax paid for naintalninS ana eaI- I.rvlag-en ses-ccastss'