The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1902-04-06
Judge Burwell Presents the
Law in Fair Manner.
CASE NOW WITH JURY
The Verdict Hinges on In
sanity" and self Defense"

reached. Judge Burwen in instructing the
jury was exceedingly fair and impartial
and submitted his remarks with such
plainness and instructiveness that no
juryman can fail to understand his duty
in arriving at verdict. In part, Judge
Burwen said:
Gentlemen of the jury, in this case the
court instructs as follows:
This is a prosecution by indictment
by the territory Of Oklahoma against the
defendant, William T. Peoples, in which
It is charged that the said defendant,
within the county of Oklahoma, and ter
ritory of Oklahoma, on the 10th day of
January, in the year of our Lord, 1902,
did then and there. unlawfully, purpose
~, wilfulIy. felioniously, without author
ity OF law and with a premeditated de-
sign. then existing in the mind of the
defendant, to effect the death OF one,
Eugene f. Mclaughlin, then and there
with certain revolver, him. the said
Eugene +. Mclaughlin, shoot, kill and
murder. as more fully set out and
charged in the indictment in this case,
contrary to the form Of the statutes in
such case made and provided against the
peace and dignity Of the territory Of Ok
lahoma.
ITO this Indictment the defendant has
pleaded not guilty, and the issue for you
to determine, from the evidence under
the instructions of the court, is the guilt
or innocence Of the defendant"
After explaining the technical legal
meaning of homicide and the circum-
stances which makes it justihable, Judge
Burwen proceeds:
I'm this case it is admitted by the de-
PENDANT that he shot and killed the de-
ceased in Haleys drug store, but he
claims that he ought not TO be convicted
of either murder or manslaughter or pun
ished for said act because the shots were
fired by him under such circumstances as
to constitute self-defense; and the de-
fendant has also introduced evidence
tending to show that at the time the
shots were fired his mind was in such a
condition as to render him irresponsible
for his acts; and upon these two defenses
the court viii instruct you. And. if after
a full comparison and careful considera-
ton of all the evidence, under the in
structlons given you by the court. you
entertain q reasonable doubt as to
whether the defendant at the time he
fired the shots which resulted in the
death of the deceased, he was sane. or
as to whether the shots were fired under
circumstances which constitute self-de-
tense. you should acquit him. But, on
the other hand, if, after such compare
sons. and consideration, You find and be
lieve beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant is guilty of murder or of any
lesser crime included in the Indictment
in this case, you should 50 find by your
verdict; and in this connection the court
viii instruct you that the rime of man.
slaughter in the first degree is included
in an indictment of murder
"The court further instructs you that.
if you find and believe that the defend
ant went into Haley's drug store on the
occasion of the homicide and that, while
in said store and in passing out of the
same. he suddenly came face TO face with
the deceased and without the intention
of assaulting the deceased. and without
making demonstrations such as would
cause the deceased to believe
that he was about TO be as
saulted by the defendant with
deadly weapon and receive some
great bodily harm at his hands. the de-
PENDANT addressed a remark or a ques-
ton 20 the deceased. and that the de-
ceased thereunon made demonstrations
such as 10 cause the defendant 10 rea-
sonahly believe that ne was about TO re-
ceive some bodily injury at the hands
OF the deceased. and ne did in fact so
believe. and In defense OF his own per
son. he thereupon drew his revolver and
sAot the deceased, as he believed. in
and i'm protection of his own
person, then end in that event You should
acquit the defendant; and in this connec-
ton the court win further instruct You
that il you believe from the evidence that
the defendant had any reasonable cause
10 believe thst the deceased was guilty Of
Intimate relations with defendants wife,
or al improper and suspicious associa-
lions with her. in opposition 10 his advice
and wishes. and that the deceased had
threatened defendants life or safety in
the even defendant mentioned TIE mat
ter to deceased. then tho defendant had
lawful rieht To interrosate the deceased
relative TO such conduct: and II in such
interview the deceased. by bis acts and
reasonably caused defendant
n believe. and be di3 believe that de-
ceased was on the point NJ carrying his
threats into execution. 10y taking the life
~ defendant. or doing him some bodily
harm. then the defendant had the right 70
defend himself ana e. use sucn force as
would repel the attack. even 20 che taxi
ing eff the lie If the deceased. 81 il then
reasonably appeared 70 him 10 De neces-
sary u DC 50 in order "a protect his own
lIre. and YOU are further instructed that.
in determining whether Il reasonably
appeared necessary - defendant 20 take
The life 90 deceased You are not 70 fGdse
him hv the standard q action which
would control 2 cecil man uuder ordinary
circumstances. but you are 20 take into
his surroundings az the par
tcular time. tie threats Il any. msde by
deceased. - coraruunicsted % the defend
ana. together with all the knowledge Of
the defendant like.y - control ol. acrI-
ste q man placed 81 DEFENDANTS position.
an6 tie defendant had tae rsht 20 viaw
tse actions ana conduct II tile deceased
r. lie ighl - anr thre-ts which The es.-
dense 6iscieseS rad been coulrnar leatel
ie iefvndart sc ~ nTsor to tha hou.lsle-
end 81 degsrrniu.ne whether &c ec-ssl
lrara reasonable lHuse h-a-iaaT ~ de1-
ser. s IS yoar l-- - laEe - e
rous .s Standpoint tHe tiase sea-
sa1aae pu mnater.si
ph ~ @
then r,aa.f sfiearea - hm
'hss fhere Was l.ar IS tna
iaw aat oas san esgad srsi ire rsa