The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1903-10-16

44IehlSN- LII HIS Charge, he SalU the at
tacks on the attorneys for the prosecu-
ton must not be considered; they had
nothing to do with the merits of the
case. He called attention to inaccura-
cies in the law quoted by the prosecu-
ton, saying in this case there is no
| expressed malice. There can be noth-
ing but implied malice. You must re-
member that the burden is On the de-
fendant to prove there was no malice.
The defendant claims he has done this
by the testimony of Simms, Schmitz,
Hocutt, Barnes and Mack Fuller. The
defendant claims there was no witness
except Sauls to contradict their testi-
mony. No witness except Sauls for the
prosecution say they saw the beginning
of the trouble. Sauls says there was
no trouble before the first shot. The
defendant says his testimony ought to
be taken in preference, because it is
five to one, and then he has proved
Sauls' bad character.
The defendant says that witnesses
show that his face Immediately after
showed evidence of having received
! blow. There is nothing to show that
the defendant provoked the blow, there
fore, the charge of murder in the sec
ond degree is eliminated. This will re-
duce it to manslaughter or excusabIe
homicide. The defendant says he thinks
he was eXcuSable under the circum-
stances. He contends from the evil
dence that he thought his life was in
danger. He says Schmitz, Hocutt, Full
Ter and Barnes all SWore that when
Haywood rose up Skinner jumped back
or 10 feet and all of them say that
Skinner had his hand on his pocket,
some say the right, others the left
pocket, but after all, it did not make
any difference if the defendant appre-
| hended that his life was IN danger.
The defendant claims there is not as
much conflict between the testimony
as might be imagined. Under these
, conditions he believed his life was in
danger.
He read the testimony of Jones Full
! Ter and told the jury that it was for
it to decide whether it was in position
| to receive the fatal shot according to
Fuller'S testimony.
Much has been said about the delib-
crate manner in which the defendant
| did the shooting. This has nothing to
! do with the case. Because a man acts
! coolly it does not debar him from the
! benefit of law. A brave man is really
| in a better position to know when his
! life is in danger than a coward, who
! possibly might shoot when there was
| no necessity.
| The state contends that you ought
| to believe Jones Fuller who says Skin
| ner was making no effort to draw a pis-
tOI when the shots were fired, but you
must remember that affirmative testi-
! mony has more weight than negative
| testimony. The defendant claims his
witness say, that Skinner was reaching
! for his pistol. The state says the bur-
den ought not TO be removed because
of the blow The blow did not excuse
| the killing, but it does away with mall
ice. If you believe the killing was done
in anger and passion and not from
! reasonable fear that Haywoods life
. was in danger. or he was about to suf-
fer bodily harm, then it is mansIaugh-
ter, but if you believe the defendant
did the killing under apprehension that
his life was in danger, or that he was
liable to suffer great bodily injury, then
it is excusable homicide. and the de-
fendant should be acquitted.
The Judge ordered that there be no
demonstration at the verdict and he
announced that he would punish any
person making a demonstration.
The jury retired, but in less than
fifteen minutes returned to the court
room and through Foreman Wiggs,
announced the verdict Of not guilty.
The jury took only one ballot.
Haywood was cool. He was sur
rounded by his three brothers, other
members Of his family, friends and
counsel. There was no demonstration
at the verdict. Haywood's friends con-
graduated him upon the result. Judge
PEBBLES complimented the jury on the
verdict, saying he did not see now it
. could have done otherwise and it was
exactly what he would have done un-
der the circumstances.