The diamond drill. (Crystal Falls, Iron County, Mich.) 1887-1996, 1902-03-01

only apparent In other words, he is
justified in acting upon the facts as
they appear to him at that time and
not TO be judged by the facts as they
actually are. In this case, if you be-
lieve from the evidence that the de-
PENDANT was assaulted by the deceased
in such way and under such circum-
stances as to infuse and fix ina the mind
Of the respondent sincere conviction
| that his life was in danger, or his body
in imminent peril then he was justified
in defending himself, whether the dan
ger was real or apparent. The law
considers that men when threatened
with danger are obliged to Judge from
the appearances and determine there
from as 70 the actual state Of affairs
surrounding them and ia such cases,
If persons act from honest conviction.
induced 10y reasonable evidence, they
will not be held responsible criminally
for mistake as to the extent OF the
actual danger. II is largely, as / have
said, 70 you question Of good faith.
How did it appear to the respondent
at the timer Did he believe his life
was in peril or that he was in danger
Of receiving serious bodily harm from
the deceasedl If so, he was justified
in defending himself and TO even take
the life of his opponent if in mis- judg
ment it was necessary. The necessity
of taking life in self defense need not
be one arising out Of actual and inn
minent danger in order to excuse the
slayer He must act upon a belief
arising from appearances which give
himsreasonable cause to apprehend dan
ger Of great bodily harm, although there
may be no actual danger His guilt
must depend upon the circumstances
as they appeared to him and his men
tai condition must necessarily be ma
teraily affected by any knowledge
which ne possesses Of the physical
strength or violent temper Of the de-
ceased, Or his violence Of manner when
angry, il any such is shown in the case.
Now gentlemen, that is the rule
that the killing having been establish
ed, two things must concur to Justify
the homicide,
First, the decedent must have been
the agressor as a party cannot seek or
invoke quarrel and then be allowed
to excuse or justify killing in the
ARRAY.
Second, as | have already said, the
attack must be such as to create in the
mind Of the salyer a reasonable ap.
prehension Of danger Of great bodily
harm. But to this rule which / have
just read to wit, that the decedent
must have been the aggressor, ASA
party cannot invite or invoke a quar-
rel and then be allowed to excuse or
Justify killing in that affray, there
Is an exception; and that exception
il this. and you are instructed that
although you may believe from the ey-
idence that the defendant commenced
the fight in question, and made the
first attack upon the deceased, still, If
you further believe from the evidence
that the defendant afterwards, and
during the ARRAY, and before the fatal
shot was fred. ceased to fight, and in
good faith attempted TO Withdraw
from the conflict by retreating or
otherwise, attempting to escape or get
away from ais opponent, then the right
OF the deceased TO employ force az
ainst the defendant ceased at that time
and If the deceased did not then
desist from'attempting 10 use violence.
then the defendant right 60 defend
himself revived and IL then he found
himself in apparent danger OF losing
his life OF sustaining great bodily in
jury at the hands of the deceased. he
had the same right 10 defend him
self that no would have had II he had
not originally commenced the conflict
Now upnflmon my aftas,tfou hns