The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1903-10-23

may be either expressed or. Implied.
p nave Just told you what expressed
malice is. g5ss {. h ~ = .s,l:;:'
Now, implied malice Is such as
the law infers or implies from the kill.
Ing itself. II the killing is proved,
and none Of the attendant circum-
stances, then the laws infers Or pre-
sumes that the killing was done with
malice aforethought. That Is what Ii
meant when we speak Of implied NAL
Ice, but, gentlemen, when all Of the
circumstances attending the killing
are related to you, you have no right
then 10 Infer anything, you must look
at those circumstances as they are de-
tailed to you by the witnesses, and
from those circumstances you must
say whether or not the killing was
done with malice aforethought.
IN WHAT SIANsLAUGnTER CONSISTS.
"NIanslaughter is the killing Of q
human being in sudden heat and pas
sion and upon sufficient legal provo
cation. This, gentlemen, Is said to
be one OF the charities of-the law. In
Its tender gegard for the frailities Of
our nature IL recognizes the fact that
under c.rtain circumstances we are
liable to be SO far transported beyond
ourselves that we act from passion
and not from reason. When une Is
suddenly thrown into passion or
transported beyond himself, reason
loses its sway and he acts from pas.
sion. II he has sufficient legal provo
cation for that passion then the law,
In it's mercy, says that is not murder,
but manslaughter.
I will call your attention to the
fact that II sufficient time elapses be-
tween the receiving Of the provocation
and the act Of killing to enable the
blood to cool, to enable passion to sub
side, to enable reason to resume It's
away, then iile Jaw says bltud must
cool, the passion must subside, reason
must assume It's away and holds the
man to as strict an accountability az
II he had not received the provocation.
In this case your inquiry will be.
has N. G. Gonzales been killed? Did
James II. Tillman kill him? II SO, un-
der what circumstances was the kill
ing done? Was the killing felonious,
such as the law Furnishes for? II So,
under what circumstance was the
killing done? Was the killing falont-
Gus, such as the law Furnishes for? II
so, was 1t murder or man slaughter.
Or was the killing excuSable? These
are the questions you will ask your
self.
WHAT THE DEFENDANT CLAIMS.
THE defendant sets up the plea or
selfdefence; that Is, that he did the
killing to save his own life, or to avoid
serious bodily harm to himself. II the
defendant has established his plea OF
selt-dcfencc, then he is excusabie and
your verdict should be not guilty.
The plea OF selfdcfence, gentlemen, is
founded on the idea of necessity; that
Is, that 1t was necessary to take the
/ life OF a@fellOw man to save one,s own
Life or. to Asci.: serious sboAfiyriiiclr n.
For the defendant to establish his
plea Of self-defence he must satisfy
you, gentlemen, of four things, not
beyond reasonable doubt, but by the
prepondcrance Of the evidence Rem
ember, that he must satisfy you, not
beyond Il reasonable doubt, but by the
preponderance IF the evidence or four
things: First, that he was without
Efault in bringing on the ditllculLy; sec
nnd, that .ic believed at the time that
ne was in danger of receiving, seriuu>
bodily harm or losing his life, and
that it was necessary to take the life
Of his asSailant.
He must go fur ther and show you
that a reasonable man, / man OF ordin-
airy firmness, courage, prudence and
reason, sJitutrd lis he was, would hav,
come to like conclusion. Now,
gentlemen, the question is, not what
you would have done, or what | would
have done, but The question is, what
would man of ordinary frmness and
reason and prudence, what conclusion
would he have reached?
Fourth, that he had no other
probable means of escape.
II he has shown these four things
to your satisfaction by the .prepunder-
ance OF the evidence, then his plea OF
self-defensc Is established and he is
entitled to an acquittal at your hands.
Now, gentlemen, what is prepond-
erance Of The evidence? 1t means
the greater weight OF the evidence.
t is usually Illustrated thus: II you
put the evidence in favor of the plea
in one pan OF the balance and the
evidence against the plea in the other
pan of the balance, and the evidence
in favor OF the plea bears down the
testimony against it, it outweighs, it
preponderates, and the plea is estab-
! liShcd
WHAT TIE STATE MUST PROVE.
1T is necessary for the State to
establish it's case to your satisfaction
beyond reasonable doubt, and stric-
ter degree Of proof is required Of the
State than is required Of the defcn-
dant. The State must make out It's
case to your satisfaction beyond a
reasonable doubt. Now, what Is a
reasonable doubt? 1t Is not vague.
whimsical, weak, imaginary doubt, but
1T Is a strong, substantial, we'll found
cd doubt, growing out of the evidence.
an honest hesitation of the mind.
brought about by the evidence. Whilst
this Is the definition laid down in the
books, the words reasonable doubt
convey just as much meaning to your
mind as the definition that is given ia
the books. l think 1T will be enough
to say that remarkable doubt Is a
reasonable doubt.
Now, If, upon 2 review OF. the
whole case, the whole evidence, that
given by the State and that given by
the defendant, you have Il reasonable