The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-10-15
Not Guilty, the Jury's
Verdict.
Continued from First Page)

--------
defendant on the side of his face, as
testified to by several of the witnesses,
then the court charges you that that
was sufficient legal provocation to rebut
the presumption of malice raised by me
killing. and you cannot lawfully find the
defendant guilty of murder in the second
degree.
IF you find from the testimony of
Sauls that Skinner and Haywood ware
quietly talking together, and without any
blow being stricken, Skinner walked away
from defendant, and thereupon Haywood
shot Skinner, then it would be your duty
to find the defendant guilty OF murder
in the second degree. If under this charge
YOU acquit the defendant of the charge OF
murder in the second degree. then 1T will
be your duty to proceed to inquire wheth-
err or not the defendant was guilty Of
manslaughter. 1t is admitted that Lud
low Skinner, at the time he was shot had
in his left hip pocket a Smith & Wesson
pistol with five chambers loaded, and
that he was left-handed If you are sat
isfied from the evidence that Ludlow
Skinner struck defendant in the face as
testified to by some of the witnesses, and
then stepped, jumped, walked or ran eight,
ten or twelve feet away from Haywood,
and then stopped and with his left sEle
towards Haywood, put his left hand to
his hip pocket in the attitude of drawing
or trying to draw his pistol, and that de-
PENDANT had reasonable ground to fear,
and did fear, that he was about to be
shot by Skinner, then the law says he
was excusable and you should find the &C.
PENDANT not guilty It makes no difference
in law that Skinner was retreating at the
time the shot was fired, provided you find
that ~ still was trying to draw ms
pistol or had his hand in such a position
as to give the defendant reasonable
ground to believe he was trying to draw
it and defendant did thus believe, for such
conduct did not indicate an abandonment
of the fight, but rather a purpose to
draw his pistol and return to the fight.
which required but a moment, and the
law did not require defendant to wait
until the danger, if any existed, vas
greatly increased.
"Where the facts are not disputed
what is sufficient cooling time is ques
ton for the court, and the court charges
you that if you believe the evidence, the
| time between the first and second shots
was lot sufficient cooling time for q
mind acting under the fear of death OF
great bodily harm to free itself from
such apprehension and influence, anc
hence it makes no difference in law which
shot killed Skinner, provided you are
satisfied that when the first shot was free
defendant believed and had reasonable
ground to believe that he was in danger
of being shot by Skinner
while every one must of necessity ac
upon his own judgment as to whether o.
not he has reasonable ground to appre
bend that he is In danger of death or o
great bodily harm, his judgment is sub1ec
to review by the jury-that IS, the lsV
makes it your duty to pass upon the rea
sonableness Of the grounds of his fear
The law will not permit a coward u
imagine he is in danger and act upHl
such fear. The circumstances lndlcatln
danger must be such that man OF or
binary firmness will have reasonabl
ground to fear that he is IN danger o
death or some great bodily harm.
1T is the duty of the jury to reconcll
conflicting testimony, if possible-especlail
where such testimony comes from VII
nesses. all of whom the jury may beiev
to be equally credible; and IN reconcllin
such testimony the jury Will bear IN min
|
law. that affirmative or positive testimon
is entitled to more weight than negatlV
testimony. But if you cannot reconcl
the conflicting evidence, 1t then become
YOUR duty To say which is true and who
is not true. In applying the atoresal
rule or maxim of the law to the test
mony in the case now on trial, the Jul
is instructed that when witnesses OF equ'
credihilty have testified to a partlcult
, fact some that they heard or saw a thin
and others. who were present, that the
did not hear or see such thlng, the te
timony of the witnesses who SAID TN
they did hear or see such think is posltl'
evidence and is entitled to more welgt
than the testimony of the witnesses WI
said that they did not hear or see sue
thing.
.sThe testimony of credible witnesst
who testify that they were near enoug
to see and did see the deceased pla'
his hand on his hip, or to his hip poke
is entitled to more weight than the test
mony of those witnesses, equally credibl
who testified that they were near enoue
to see, but did not see any such actie
on the part of the deceased. This Is
because Skinner may have had his har
at his hip pocket and yet the witness
may be telling the truth when they So
they did not see it, but if he did not ha'
his hand there those witnesses who sa
he did told deliberate falsehoods.
IF you believe that Haywood XIII
Skinner because he was stricken the Die
and not because he apprehended he, WI
in danger Of death or great bodily harl
then your verdict should be manslaughte
There is no evidence from which yt
can find that the defendant did or sa
anything to justify Ludlow Skinner
inflicting the blow, if you find he did
fiict it.
Now, gentlemen, it is my duty to ref
to some of the testimony that is materl
to the case and to apply the law to it.
You must remember that the burden
upon the defendant to satisfy you tn
he did not act from malice in this cas-
= = The burden is upon him to satisfy "
= that Ludlow Skinner struck the blow
testified to by witnesses, In order to l
fIlta or rebut or rather remove the pI