The Nome nugget., 1903-01-14

Every witness had testified exactly the same, and that in not Oae. instance had there been any conflict in the testimony. | Four eye witnesses mad cOrrOburated each other. Jolley waited longer even than the law allowed, said Fink, inaS- much aS he was aware that James had made threats to kill him. and that JOl- ! ley would have been justified in shoot ing James as soon as they came out Of the Eld0rado. Jolley waited tCo long. 1 His record, said Fink. was known by all: that during the past two terms Ot Eo!fice as chief Oi police there had been lsss complaint and less trunbIc than any town ofthe same size he had ever known during the same period, and that he not only ought to be acquitted and discharged. but viudicated, a5 well.
 Attorney sullivan stated that he agreed with Grigshy thaI the testimony was undisputed and exactly alike. The court here interrupted and said he dis agreed with both counsel. us the tc>li- mony of Eddy Stevens was net clear. The record of testimony was referred back to. and no conflict was brought out. The witnesses had told of the affair as they had seen it. Sullivan then reviewed the case in fuii, showing where. in his opinion. IL was an act of sell defense. If the man had made the threats. and had the physical power and means to carry Out the threat then. 1 in the eyes of law Joiley was only de- 1 fcnding himself by shooting. To go outside of the law. said Sullivan, the circumstances all ledd Joi,eN to helicve ! that he was taking the right and safe | cOurSe. There was not one line of teS- l timony to show that it was pIemcGitat- ed on the part of ,Joiley, or that 1t was done out of malice to James. Summing l up the points in question, sullivan saiI that before binding anybody to the grand jury, cause mast he shown that a crime had been committed.
 McGinn said that the defense had lost sight of the point in question: that 1 1t was not Il question of whether Jolly was guilty CT not. it was whether enough evidence had been submitted to hold him to the grand jury. There was no doubt bat that & killing had 1 had been done, tU say nothing of mUr- der, and that the only testimony given on self defense was Io.lsy'S, ana he, at the time, WAS not under oath Threats alone were no grounds for his action. not even in law.
 Judge Reeds Remarks.
 The argument here closed. after which | Commissioner Reed alter reviewiu. ! the evidence. said:
 i | do not fully agree with the state mant of the law 0i threats as euun- cialed by counsel for the defendant A man ha, not right 10 talleth the law into his own hands when threats Only are used. even if those threats ara used when the person k in q position t0 C0 bodily harm: bat the law is. as it seems tO me. that when threats are used, ac- COmpanied ny an offer t0 do violence or 1 some overt act. or some act which would put the party against whom the real5 were used in position of feel ] ing that an overt act was abOut to be commenced. then he ie justified to pro tect himself, and only under those | circumstances is q man justified in talk l in. the law in his own hands.
 As have said before. the testimony, as it appears to me, certainly cannot he said, by taking all the testimony. that the accused here is guilty of murder in the first degree. because there is no molicc-no deliberate malce--0f any nature shown: neither do 1 think that the testimony shows that the defendant is guilty of murder in the second de gree. because il is not shown that this was simply done in the heat of passion. | The only question then is tO decide whether there was any Justification of | this killing whether il was a iusti- liable homicide, whether the defendant was acting wholly in self defense. It appears to me, outside of the testimony of Mir. JOiiey, that there l. q hazne,o about the tc~timony-t that that is a mat ter that has not heen fully gone into enough for me to decide at this pre- liminarY hearing.
 Now. if NIr. James was walking away from Mir. J0lley and AIr. Jolley called to him and spoke tS him and caused Mr. James to turn around, then Mr. James started for Mr. JOlley, l do not think it would be a case of iustiliablc self-defence, because it was Mir. Jolley' duty at that time il Mr. James was walking away from him, to avoid him Us much as possible. knowing of the threats: if, on the other hand. Mir. James had turned around and was de | llberately coming to Mr. Jollcy with q pistol in his hands. with intent to do Mir. JoIley bodily harm, then it was a case of justiIiabie homicide. This be- ing my view of the testimony, l am inclined to hold Mir. Jolley to await the action of the grand jury, not without bail. because there is Il strong pre- sumption in favor of his innocence of | the crime with which he is charged. l l will therefore fix Mr. Jolley's bail in 1 the sum oI five thousand dollars, he to beheld to await the Faction of the grand jury.
 Hydraulic pipe a specially at Oscar Wits tin shop.
 First drawing of the suit club will