The Dickinson press., 1904-11-05

v%iciousness, quarrelsomeness or peace
ableness.
The defense has attempted to prove
that the general reputation of the de.
ceased as to these three attributes of
character, was bad.
The prosecution, on the other hand,
have attempted to overcome the testi.
vi the defense in this regard bv
placing witnesses upon the stand who
testified as to those attributes of charac.
ter. This testimony was permitted to
be introduced and received by he court.
not because it is n less a crime to
murder a bad man than a good man or
to murder ones enemy than to murder
ones friend.
The object of receiving This testimonv
was to enable the iurv to place Them.
selves in the situation If he defendan,
at the time OF the ALLEGED homicide. and
that you, the iury, might know what he.
the defendant, then knew. This testi-
mony was received to aid YOU. the iurv.
in determining whether or not at the
time of the alleged homicide, the de.
fendant honestly believed that his life
was IN danger, or that-he was in danger
Of receiving some great personal injury
at the hands OF the deceased. and to aid
you in determining whether or not the
danger to the defendant was Imminent.
and TO aid YOU in determininE whether
or not the killing was done as a last
resort to protect the defendant from
death or from great personal injury.
AS a general rule, the SLAYER can
derive no advantage from the character
of the deceased for viciousness or ouar.
relsomeness, provided the killing took
place under circumstances which show
that the slayer did not believe himself
in danger at the time of the killing.
The defense. alleges that the homicide
was justiiable on the ground of self
defence; and | charge YOU that if. under
the evidence, you find this TO be true,
you can convict the defendant of no
o~ffense, and your verdict should be not
guilty.
If Il person takes the life OF another in
resisting any attempt to murder such
person or to commit any felony upon
him, or if d person takes the life OF
another in self defense, where there is
reasonable ground to apprehend a de-
sign to commit a felony or do some
great personal injury, and there is immi-
nent danger of such design being
effected, her such act is iustifable in
the eyes of the law.
But in order to Justify a person in
taking the life of another in self defense.
it must appear that such person took
such life while resisting an attempt to
murder the person accused, or to do
him some great bodily harm, and that
such act of killing was committed in the
Lawful defense OF the person accused,
when there is reasonable ground to
apprehend a design to commit a felony
vi ~ 10 sonle great personal injury, n
such design will be effected,
M one has a r;oht tn ill ,notber
even in sell defense, unless such killing
is apparently necessary for such de-.
fense Rafore !. narson ,..;t., ~
!ellsS' Delore person cah JUSTIFY TAX
ing the lite of a human being on the
ground of self defense. he must. when
dt.dcheu employ al reasonable means
within his power and CONSTANT with his
safety, to avoid danger and avert the
lSEe"ee,'y VI Alli.hs' ai,housh nc Is not
ODllged to retreat and fly from his aSsail.
ant,
ny imminent oangerw hlcn Will Justify
the killing OF another, is meant imme-
date danger, such as must he instantly
nv nuen 10 ."lii'ol oe eudioeu against
by calling on the assistance of others or
on the protection of the law.
~, uIue. the circumstances as u.s.
closed by the evidence, o find as 4
fact that it appeared to the defendant
.ndt II was III iAiiniheat uahSer OF ueatn
or great personal injury at the hands of
the deceased, then the defendant would
naVS llen' 10 Pieau ana prove tnat
the Killing was done IN self defense.
But, on the other hand, if you find as 4 fact
that ut the time of the alleged KILLING FL did
not appear to the defendant that he was in
imminent danger Of death or great personal
injury at the hands of the deceased, the law
plea of .elf defense.
If, at the time the deceased met his death,
you find from the evidence that he was r..
stances which convince you that the believed
he was in imminent danger of death or great
personal injury at the hands OF the deceased,
plead and prove that the killing was done in
self defense. But, on the other hand. If Won
find from the evidence that at the time the
deceased met his death, he was retreatine
from the defendant under circumstances
which convince you that the defendant aid
not and could not have believed that he was
injury at the hands of the deceased, then tho
law would not permit him to avail himself Of
the plea of self defense.
to the defendant that he was in imminent
danger of death or great personal Injury, You
have a right to consider what, under Similar
circumsta conditions and surroundings,
a reasonable man would have concluded in
the premises.
When one, without fault himself, is at.
tackled by another, he may kill his assailant
without retreating, if he has reasonable
grounds for believing and does believe, that
his assailant intends to take his life, or to do
some bodily harm, that such danger is immi.
nent, and that the killing is NECESSARY in
order to avoid the danger, although It may
afterwards turn out that the appearances
were false.
When a party assaulted believes, and has
good reason to believe, that great bodily
BARN is about to be done him, and acts in q
moment of some impending peril, he need not
gauge the quantity and force necessary to
Kill the assailant; but in such cases when the
plea of self defense is set up, the Question il
whether under all the circumstances The
&C, used had reason to believe. and did he-
lleve, that the force exercised was necessary
great bodily harm.
The law declares that in order to Justify the
killing in self defense. the defendant shouiS
have had reasonable grounds to apprehend,
and must, in fact, have apprehended. that he
was in Imminent danger Of great personal
injury. Tho words great personal injury"
do mt nocoo so r;lr M IN c,,cl, ;pi,, ~, :, i, rs..Il