The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-12-07
TALK TO JURY.
Attorneys Argue the Hall Mur-
der Case.
Attorney O. e. Hungate Opens
For the State.
REVIEWS TESTIMONY.
Discusses Variance in Testi-
m0ny of Hall and Others.
Judge Hazen's Instructions Tell
How Far officer May Go.
Case Goes to the Jury at Close
of Nichols Argument.

Case Goes to the Jury at Close
of Nichols Argument.
The arguments in the Hall murder
case We're begun before Judge Hazen in
the district court this morning.
The crowd which has been in attend
ance upon the trial since it began
Wednesday morning was much smaller
than on any day previous The de-
fendant, Samuel L. Hall, was accom-
panied to the court room by his wife
and children. Mrs. Head, her four
children and her sister sat on the other
side of the attorneys table. Several
times during the arguments Mrs. Head
could not control herself and burst out
crying.
The defendant Hall is charged with
murder in the first degree, but under
the circumstances and the instructions
of the court to the jury, if the defend
ant is found guilty it will be upon some
degree of manslaughter. For murder
in the first degree the sentence is death
and for the second degree not less than
81 years in the penitentiary. The de-
grees of manslaughter are as follows:
First degree, not more than II years
nor less than five years in the peniten-
tiary.
Second degree, not more than five
years nor less than three years in the
penitentiary.
Third degree, not more than three
years in the penitentiary nor less than
six months in the county Jail.
Fourth degree, not more than two
years in the penitentiary nor less than
six months in the county jail
The prosecution hopes to secure a
verdict of manSlaughter in the first de-
gree. The defense has made straight
fight on the ground that Hall was JUS
titled in making the arrest and in using
his club, and that the act which re-
suited so unfortunately was justifiabIe,
Head RESISTING him and
sisting struck him, and was in a menac-
ing attitude when Hall struck him.
HUNGATE OPENS FOR STATE.
Attorney Otis Hungate, who assisted
in the prosecution, opened the argument
for the state at 9 o'clock this morning.
1.-THE law protects a weak man or
man with a brittle skull just as much
as a healthy man." said Mr.. Hungate.
blow was light or heavy, it was fatal in
it's results. The testimony was brought
in here about his being drinking man
and about his addiction to the use of
alcohol, carry the impression to you
that he was a drunken sot and there
fore it was all right for the policeman
to kill him. Even if he had been ad-
dicted to the use of liquor, and if he
give the policeman the right to finish
the job
''I will not argue to you that George
Head conducted himself properly at
that meeting but it does not appear in
the testimony that he was so very
boisterous as to stop the meeting.
There were people standing close to him
who could not understand what he
said. Members of the meeting testified
that Head did not disturb the meeting
to any extent. I want to suggest that
while Mr. Hall was a policeman at
an arrest does not make any
difference in the weighing of testimony
as to how the blow was struck, and
you should weigh the testimony the
same as if the blow had not been struck
by an officer
Mr.. Hungate reviewed the testimony
Of witnesses for the state and for the
defense
Il think that Halls own testimony
shows that he was unjustifiable in
striking Head said Mr. Hungate. ''It
was no excuse for Hall to club Head
even if Head had struck him unless he
thought other blows would follow. Hall
1ad no right to strike that blow unless
1ther blows We're to follow and now we
get down to the question of the posi-
ton of Heads hands. 1t does not sees -
TO ne that Halls testimony in his be-
half should be taken against the testi-
nony of eleven uninterested witnesses
who testified that Heads hands were
open.
made an attack on him and that he
had to defend himself. Mrs. Head tes-
-ified that her husband said to her,
Honest to God, Matte, this man just
peat me- and there is no testimony
against it.
Hall claims that Head committed an
assault upon him but at the police sta
ion he omitted to charge Head with re-
sisting officer. That was the reason
le claims the blow was justifiable.
Why did he not charge Head with re-
;istance? Because he could not sub
stantiate the charge"
o'clock.
HAZEN'S INSTRUCTIONS.
The following is from Judge Hazen's
Instructions to the jury:
A policeman has authority to make
an arrest for the violation of city Or
finance without a warrant when the
)ffense for which the arrest is made is
in his presence, and making
such arrest the officer may use such
force as is reasonably necessary to
make the arrest, but must not use more
'orce than is reasonably necessary un-
Ter the circumstances A policeman in
making an arrest must not inflict I'M
necessary injury by the use of unnece5-
;ary force and in making a simple ar
est fer the violation of city ordi-
nance an officer would not be author
ife or ipf1icting great bodily harm
merely to make the arrest. But, if in
attempting to make an arrest officer
S attacked and the attack is such as TO
place him in imminent danger of dealt:
,r great bodily harm, then such officer
would have the right to resist such at
ack by the use of such force as is rea
onably necessary to reDel the attack
md protect himself, even to the extent
If infiicting great bodily harm or TAX
ng life if necessary.
A party attacked has a right to act
ipon conditions as they appear to him
It the time, although subsequent events
nay show that he was mistaken. If
hen you believe from the evidence in |
his case that the deceased, George ". |
Head. at the time the alleged injury |
vas inflicted upon him was violating |
he ordinances of this city by disturb |
ng a religious gathering of people at or