The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-10-20
NOT GUILTY, THE
JURY' VERDICT
And Ernest Haywood, at a Quarter to One,
Was a Free Man
Again.

SO on this trial defendant has had tie
benefit of it.
The question, and the only question.
which concerns you IN this case, Is Wheth
er or not the defendant IS guilty of any
crime, and if SO, what Crlme-WhetLer
murder in the second degree. or mar
slaughter, or nothing. In answering this
question you should consider the evidence
as given by the witnesses according 10
you recollection Of it, and the law as
given to you by the Court. AMI nothing
else. The statute, for some reason I'M
known to the Court, allows counsel TO
argue to the jury the law as we'll as the
evidence, but still it is your duty
after all to take the evidence
from the witnesses and the law
from the Court. This is proper, because
if the Court makes q mistake, the Su-
preme Court can and Will correct it, but
if you take the law from counsel and a
mistake IS made, there is no way to
correct it. Besides, each counsel is par
tial to his side, while the Court is sworn
to hold the scales Of justice equally ba
arced and the court always tries to do
that. This case illustrates the wisdom.o of
thu rule requiring the jury to take the
Jaw from the Court and not from cOun-
sci. The cases of State V. Matthews, rs-
ported in so N. c., AT, and the case OF
state V. Britain, reported in 50 n. G..
4S1, have no application to the facts Ill
tins case and the court cannot conceive
how counsel could have thought that
those cases could aid you in asceTtaining
the truth of this case. Nor can the
Court see how counsel for The defendant
could suppose that the case read from q
Mississippi report or the definition of
murder in the first degree could aid you
in deciding this case.
But the strongest proof of the WIS
dom of the rule requiring you to take
the law from the court is furnished IN
the argument of Mr.. Gillian, when he
tells you that there is In this case evil
dence Of expressed malioe-that standing
upon the parapet Of the postofice ana
being armed furnished evidence of eX-
pressed malice towards Ludlow Skinner.
What is malice, expressed or implied,
and what is evidence of malice, are ques-
tlons of law for the court and not for
the jury. The court cannot conceive that
a lawyer of such long experience and emf
nent ability as Mr.. Gillian, could nave he
lieved that he was giving to you correct
law.
Malice is a condition of the mind
" iiASiA ichP & AN"1S 'Sc 10 VI SoSIbl
duty and fatally bent on mischief. From
the killing with a deadly weapon the law
implies malice, but when it appears to
the satisfaction Of the jury that the xiii
ing took place Immediately after the
deceased had stricken the defendant, then
the law attributes the killing to anger,
passion and resentment rather than to
malice, then the burden is upon the
State to satisfy You fully that notWith-
standing the provocation caused by Tie
blow, that 1t was not the cause Of the
killing but malice was. This must be dore
by proof OF expressed malice or by evi-
dence that the killing was lone by such
unusual means or accompanied by such
acts Of cruelty as indicate a wicked and
depraved heart. There is no evidence of
either IN this case. Expressed malice de-
notes by its very term that it must have
been declared before the act either by
word or act. 1t denotes generalization
that which has not been preconceived can
not be expressed. If the defendant acted
from expressed malice, he is guilty of MUIR
der IN the first degree, and if Mr.. Gil
ham really believed he was giving you the
law correctly he ought not to have admit
ted that there IS no evidence Of premedi-
tatlon, because there can be no expressed
malice without generalization. You can
not express malice. either by words, or
BIS threats, or by acts. as by laying III
wait, unless you have thought about it
rTemedltated on it. It follows, then. as
night follows day, that when Mr.. Gillian
undertook to lay down the law to you
as to malice. he asked you to base your
verdict not upon the law as it is, but
upon the law as he made it to suit his
side. The court charges you that there
Is no evidence IN this case Of expressed
malice. Nor IS there any evidence Of i'm
pL"G nallc" except what the law implies
from the admitted killing with a dead,,y
weapon. From this the law pr .sumes
malice and places the burden upon the
defendant to rebut that presumption.
what counsel for the State meant by
telling you that Something is in the
background; yes. there is a dark cloud IN
the background the court cannot com
prehend and l am satisfied that you can
not But what l do know IS that if there
i anything in the background that would
aid you in coming to the truth Of this
inquiry, it was Mr.. Gilliam's duty to
have brought it out. Not having lone
that 1T is equally true that it was his
duty to keep silent on the subject. 1t
Is rot right to ask you to forget your
oaths and base your verdict upon what
exists in the imagination of counsel.
Having tried to disabuse your minds
OF any improper influence caused by the
matters before referred to, I will now
proceed to give you the law which should
govern you IN arriving at your verdict.
The defendant IS indicted for murder.
Under that Indictment four verdicts could
be rendered:
list. Murder in the first degree;
"2ud. Murder in the second degree:
"3rd. M~anslaughter;
"4th. Not guilty.
After the evidence was all in. tho
State very properly announced that it
would not ask q verdict Of murder in the
first degree, because there was no ev1-
dencc to support it.
The State having proved and defend.
ant having admitted that on the 2Isi
day OF February. 1908, in front of The
postofflce Of the city Of Raleigh, he killed
Ludlow Skinner with A deadly weapon
to.wit: a pistol the law presumes that
the killing was done with malice, and it