Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1903-02-18

killing was in necessary self-defense,
in which event they should find him !
not guilty.
These matters, and the legal prin- !
ciples embraced in the sixth and sew
enth instructions, were covered by the |
charge Of the court
Defendants fifth instruction, long
one, specified certain circumstances J
and train of facts for the consider i
alton of the jury. Taking the refused !
instructions together, they were all !
open to one or more objections. They !
repeated propositions IF law given by
the District Judge, or assumed facts. |
or were argumentative. or laid special
stress upon. particular circumstances
A defendant is entitled to have in
structions given to the jury embodying
every legal principle applicable to his
case, but not necessarily in any par
ticular language. The tendency of
courts is to give too MANY Instructions
1t has often been held proper for the
court to refuse instructions if they
are given in substance in it's charge
and the judgment will not be reversed
for such refusal when it appears from
the record that the law CT the case has
been laid down pronerlv and fairly NV
the trial judge. State vs.. Ward 10
New, sos. State VS.. Cardeli 10 New
$50. State VS.. OCOnnOr II New. 416.
State vs.. Anderson New 2G5. State
VS.. MILAN. 3 New. 400 State VS.. Re-
yer. l3 New. II. State vs.. McLane, Is
New. 345. Thompson IS. Powning Is
New. 1875. State vs.. Stellar, 16 New.
, 2O1. State VS.. Waterman l New, 543
State VS.. Reno, 81 P. 500 (Kan). Peo-
pie VS.. Chadwick, %, p, 1877 (Utah.
, People VS.. Mccoy II r. 212 (CaN. U.
; s VS.. Camp 10, P. 226 Gdabo). State
, vs.. Frederick so P. 33S Wash) Rich
ardson VS.. Hoyt 60 Iowa g. Nc. Pac.
Ry. Co. vs.. Christman, G5 Tex. 3G9
, WannCck VS.. Mayor 53 Ca. 162. Thomp-
son US. Hoyey. 10 H. 1873 Com VS. Far
, rel ice Mass. 525. Abbot's Trial
Brief (crim). 6l5 note 8, citing many
cases. State VS.. Maher 25 New 40
, 1t is also well settled that under
Art. 6. Sec. XII of our Constitution,
and in many states having similar
! provisions. that an instruction which
, assumes facts in dispute, or that are
f net admitted, is erroneous. This does
2 not interfere whit the right Of the
court. during the trial to state the tes-
timony or what witness said, without
assuming whether it is true leaving
the jury to draw its own inference as
to what it establishes. 2 THOMPSON
on Trials Sec. 22S0-1-2. State VS. Har-
kin New. 377. State vs. Tickel 13
: New. 500. State VS.. Warren IS New.
q 406. State VS.. Duffy 6 New. 1873. State
q VS.. AhTong Z New. 14S Gerhanser VS..
!, ms. Co. New. IT'S State VS.. McGin.
mis- New. 1893. Tognlni vs.. Kyle II
: New. PIT.
;, 1t is also the rulethat instructions ar.
gumentative in their nature sould be
. refused. Thompson on Trials Sec
! 1901. People VS.. Mcnamara "a Cal
$40. Sackett's instruction to Juries
end. Ed. Jones VS.. r. R. Co. 1O7 Ala
400. Morris VS.. Lachnam 6S Cal. 112
l Hays VS.. Gainesville ST R. Co. 20
: Tex. 500. league VS.. Lindsay LOG Ala
!. 2s6. Kirk VS.. Wolff Man. Co., 118, Ill
SGT. Hays VS.. State IS Ga. IS. Merritt
; VS.. Merritt 20 ILL.,. IS. Am B. Soc. VS.
= Price, lis ILL., 628
!. Nor is the court required to Law
r stress on particular points in the ties
n timOny, when, as in this case, the
4 jury has been told to carefully con
3 slider all the facts and evidence II
+ may be well to allow the trial judge
}. some latitude and discretion about
r calling their attention to importan,
or obscure matters, but if it were in
cumbent upon the court to specify anG
= direct them to consider every detail
y or fact that the attorney might wish t
!. insert it would result in giving undue
~ prominence to parts of the testimony
!! !. and in loading instructions with much
that ought to be left to the argument
= OF counsel In this particular
- the refused instructions were not upor
u the law of the case, but upon the in
!, ference to be drawn from the evidence
i and this was matter peculiarly with
in the province of the jury. The de
u PENDANT could not properly embody IL
: an instruction a part of the circum
', stances, isolate them from all tn,
u other facts, and demand that the cour
>. instruct the jury as to the weight tt
y be given them. independently of al
y the other proof in the case
~ Coffin vs. u 8. 1872 U. s. GA, PEG
~ pie VS.. Dixon "a Cal. 256. PEOPLE VI
l. Demonsset IL p7S9 (Ca;). sackett's In
Re structions to Juries { End. Ed). Sec
h. II, 13 & IA. Evans vs.. George so III
n. 81. Calf. vs.. Thomas 81 III. 479. Cush
at man vs.. Cogswell SO III. 62. Chesne
q vs.Meadows 80 III. 431.Graves vs.. Col
or we'll 80 III. Claims Co. vs. Earle 8
n. Mich. 146. Chase vs. Bull Iron Work
NJ IS Mic. 139. Jones vs.. Jones 81 Nc
I'd 141. Campbell vs.. People 100 Ill. SCI
le Wachsteeter vs. State 80 Ind 29(
"A Goodwin vs.. State So Ind $50. Fine VI
n St Louis Public Schools 80 Mo. s.
" Benson VS.. State 50 8. w. 166 TEX
Drainage Comm'rs. VS.. Ill Cen. R. r
,e 1853 Ill. 1853. Hickory u. 8. 100 U. s
O. 40S. Gross VS.. Shaffer 20 Kan. 442. Re
g. Der VS.. Herring lis Pa. St. $50. Web
at Tvs. Lees 149 Pa. st. Is. Reed vs.. Rec
~ &c VT 400 NJ IN VIC Thovno<