The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-10-20

| must not take my recollection OF the evi
; dcncc. because it is your exclusive prov
ince 10 say what the evidence was and
thea give It such faith as you think II
! entitled TO. and nobody has any right t
interfere With that. But. according e
nv recollection, no witness but SauIs said
that they saw the beginning OF It and saS
any part OF II until after the first shot
! was fired and 50 the defendant says that
/ this array OF witnesses ought to satisfy
YOU that there was a lick struck, and
struck just a they said 1t was, on the
} right cheek, and Knocked Mr.. Haywood
: down on the parapet ON his lett hand, and
then he recovered and sho: Immediately
Now he says that you ought 70 believe
that testimony in preference TO Sauls, be
cause, they say, II Is four or five or SIX
illnesses against one and then. they say,
because Sauls' character has been assalled
and several of his neighbors have come here
and said he was a man OF bad character
for lying and nobody in the neighborhood
believed him and they say on that account
ycu ought to believe these witnesses IN
stead Of Sauls. They furthermore say
that the other circumstances connected
with it all coTrcborate those witnesses
and strengthen their testimony. They
say that Mrs. Billings Immediately after
wards saw Haywood while he was IN the
custody of the officer, and that she saw
a red spot on his right cheek where these
witnesses said the lick was struck. He
a that when he was carr ed TO the
TAILOR, who was IN the stand, says he had
that red place when he was put III Jail
and the next morning blood had settled
under his eyes. I think some one
or two other witnesses testified to pretty
much the same thing. And the defendant
says that that ought to satisfy you that
Mr.. Skinner did strike that blow.
Now the court charges you that if he
did strike that blow, as testified to by the
witnesses, as I nave told you before, there
is nothing III this case here to show that
Mr.. Haywood provoked that assault, there
IS nothing to show that he was in the
wrong, and therefore. the fact that Mr..
Skinner did strike in the manner testified
to by the witnesses, if you find it to be
true, is sufficient in law to repel the
presumption of malice caused by killing
with a deadly weapon, and you should say
the defendant is not guilty of murder in
he second degree, unless. as I stated just
now, you arc positive from all the evidence
that he killed Skinner, not because he was
under the apprehension of being - |
started to tell you wrong. So, then, if you
believe that Skinner struck Haywood as
testified to, it is your duty to say he is
not guilty Of manslaughter. Now they say
that he was not only not guilty of man
slaughter, but that they have shown you
evidence which ought to satisfy you that
he was excusable. There has been a good
deal said here in the argument about Gust
ifed.' I suppose that was an inadvert-
ance. No individual is justified in killing
another one to save himself. An officer
who in the execution of a decree of court
hangs a man, or an officer who in the ex-
ercise of his office is forced to kill a man
is in law justified, but an individual man
who kills another in self-defense is not
justified. but excused. The law says it
will not undertake to try to restrain and
deaden and destroy the principle of God
implanted in every mans heart of self
defense-that whenever n man thinks, and
reasonably thinks, his life is in danger,
it excuses him; it does not justify him,
but excuses him for taking life in order
to defend himself. And the defendant
says that he thinks he has offered evi-
dence that ought to satisfy you that he
was eXcusable under the circumstances.
He says that Schmitz, that Hocutt, that
Mack Fuller, that Barnes, that Thomas, all
swore that at the time Haywood rose up
from the blow that was stricken that Skin
ner had jumped off, some placing it at
from eight to ten feet, and at that time
he was with his left side towards Haywood,
and he had his left hand-all Of whom said
he had his left hand, two said he had it
under his coat, and Barnes said he had
his right hand, on his hip pocket and the
defendant says it IS easy for Barnes to
have been mistaken as to the hand, that
a man who did not know he was left hand
ed would be apt to conclude if he saw HIM
put his hand to his hip that 1t was his
right hand, and therefore there is not SO
much conflict Of testimony between Barnes
and the others as appears. But that IS a
matter entirely for you to decide and not
for the court. He says then at that time,
in that attitude, IN selt-defense he had
reason to believe and did believe that his
life was IN danger, that Skinner was go
ing to shoot him, because he had stricken
him a blow and had jumped back off in
that way out of reach of Haywood so he
could not take hold of him, and was at
tempting to draw his pistol as he thought
for the purpose of killing him. And he
says that you ought to believe those four
or five witnesses because there is nobody
else that has sworn to the contrary, ex-
cept Mr.. Sauls and Mr.. Fuller. And he
says that Mr.. Sauls didn't say that he
didn't do it, but all he SAID was that he
was looking there and saw them, and then
he looked off a moment, and when he
looked back the shooting had taken place,
and he didn't see Mr.. Skinner step off.
Now he says. that while they admit that
Mr.. Fuller IS a man Of unimpeachable
character, impartial in this matter and try
ing to tell the truth, that his statement IS
such as that IL is contradicted by natural
evidence and cannot be true. They say
that Mir. Fuller said that when he saw
MI. Skinner before the first shot was fired,
or at the time the first shot fired, he was
going away from Mr.. Haywood, and at the
time the second shot was fired he was go
ing a course southwest. Now the defend
ant says that if ne was going either course