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

ms ttlEG&AAts&-$ ANkAN7%*
there. This Is q line directly p~errend'eu-
lar 70 the street. Sorter south would
he a little TO the light. No man ! sup
nose can tell how far to tht right 'soTtcr
south would be. but II matters moi wheih
OF II was much or less When lie turned
sorter 10 the north. II he had turned
directly to the north and gone north a.
4 matter OF fact. every step re made III
til he reached the line drawn perpen
dicuIar TO the east would not have bee"
going from Mr. Haywood but would have
been going TO him. because ! = 4 mat
ter OF current knowledge that we ali must
take notice OF, that the hypotheuuse OF
a right angle triangle Is longer thah
either one OF its Leg. and. II he Weni
out and turned due north. that wouIG
put his left side 10 Mr.. Haywood. Ind
instead OF going from him he would have
been going 10 him until he crossed the
eastern line. But Mr.. Fuller avs he
wasn't going west, he VAS gong sorter
north. Then il j. for you TO say whether
or not. after re went out sorter south
ana then turned soTter north and the
second shot was fired, whether or not II
could have hit HIM IN the way II is admit
ted it did, because the State proved by
DR.. Knox how the ball entered. and the
defendant proved by DR.. Jordan how Z
entered. and the clothes have been eX-
hibited to you. and il Is Tor you TO say
whether or not it was possible Tor that
shot to have hit him il he was gong
az Mr.. Fuller said he was gong.
Now, then, the defendant says that.
Notwithstanding they have brought evl-
dence here TO prove the bad character q
Hocutt; that, notwithstanding they have
brought witnesses here to show that be
made contradictory atement notNlth-
standing they brought witnesses here 70
show that SchmitZ had made contradic-
tory statements, the defendant says that
they both proved good characters By a
larger number OF witnesses than tine 9TH
er side proved had characters, and that,
when you prove a mans character, II only
gives you the means OF ascertaining how
much truth there Is to be put in his
testimony. And the defendant insists
that there are other witnesses here to
corrroboratc these men, because he says
that the coat there, which has Meth II
a disposition nor the capacity for saying
Il lie, showed that that wound could not
have been made in any position othec
than the position occupied by Mr.. Skin
ner according to the testimony OF Mr..
Sohmitz and Mr.. Hocutt, and Barnes and
Mack Fuller and Thomas. And he says,
therefore. that they are corroborated II.
this natural testimony and you ought to
believe them without regard TO their char
acter. And he says that if you believe
them, you ought to believe that the first
shot hit and at that time Mr.. +
was l~aboring under the Apprehension
that he was going to be shot; and Il he
had reasonable grounds to believe AMI
did believe he was going to be shot, then
the court tells you that the Law excuses
him for ChOH+inu hacaJ1sa hp WAS fhp-,
shooting in self-defense. But these are
matters entirely for you to say. whether
OF not he had reasonable grounds to do
it. and whether or not the demonstration
was made as the witnesses say.
Now, something has been said about
the elaboration. the GOODNESS. One Of the
witnesses said he took the pistol and put
it up there (indicating). Well, now, a
brave. courag eous, calm man can appro-
hend danger, if danger exists, as well
as a tilnid. scary man. The law does
not excuse a timid. scary man any more
thar it does a brave and courageous man.
A brave, cool and coura geous man is bet
ter able to judge Of the necessity of TAX
ing a mans life than a fellow that is
scared and timid. Because a man acts
cool ard deliberate about 1t is no reason
why he should be deprived of the benefit
of the law. because the law IS made for
the cool and calm and the brave as we'll
az for the timid; and therefore the fact
alone that he took that pistol that way
would not indicate anything but that he
was cool and deliberate about it.
"Now the defendant says, and according
to my recollection. most Of the witnesses
put the deceased. some of them going
southeast and some OF them going north
east, and some of them turned to Tic
West, at the time the second shot vas
made. and it is for you to say whether or
not under these circumstance the second
shot could have hit Mr.. Skinner 10 the
left of the arm. If you are satisfied that
it could not, why. then, it follows as 4 ,
matter of course that you ought to find
that the first shot hit him. But. as /
said before in my charge. according to
the view the court has of it. it makes no
difference which shot hit him. for the
reason, as stated to you. that what is
cooling time is a question of law for the
court; and, when a man Is put in appre-
hensi0n of his life. the little time that
elapses between the firing of this pistol
ID that manner Indicating by snap Of
fngers) the court holds was not a suri- I
cient time for the apprehension to be re-
moved and the influence Of that apprchcn-
sion to cease to act upon the man; and |
all the more so if you are satisfied, as
some OF the witnesses testified, that ne
mad his left hand still 20 his hip until
the second shot was fired.
THE State says to the contrary; that
you ought not I. find that the defendant
mas removed the burden, because it says
that a great deal Of the evidence depends |
upon Hocutt and Schmitz, and it says il
has biackened Hocutt's character and has
offered men from his own county to show
r hot 1n y - "a 80 Nh |
has brought two or three witnesses 20
contradict Schmitz and show that
Schmltz made statements elsewhere, and
that you ought not to remove the pre-
sumption raised by law by the testimony |
Of any such witnesses. That is a matter.
gentlemen, for you entirely. whether you
believe 1t or not is a question entirely
for you. It is your duty to consider all
the circumstances and consider the good
characters they proved and consider the
bad characters proved by the State for