Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1904-02-11

street on Saturday.
The court refused to allow the defense
to offer certified copy of Payne's war
record as an evidence Of good reputation.
Samuel w Graham, Mrs. John Deylin
and James G. Kitchen, were called in re-
buttal, but their testimony was unim-
portant-
About 4.s0 court adjourned until Friday
morning.
Prosecutor Starr. in his opening, and
throughout his argument to the jury,
charged the defendant with wilful pre-
meditated murder, and asked for a verdict
Of murder in the first degree.
Mr.. Swackhamer, in his hours address
to the jury, reviewed the evidence, show
ing how inconsistent with the States de-
mand was the evidence Of many of its wit
nesses The testimony Of Mrs. Minks and
Lizzie Minks, he contended, was utterly
unworthy of credence, as they told one
story to Rev. Mr. Wendell on the fatal
night, and another on the witness stand.
He denied that there was particle of
evidence to warrant first degree verdict.
while there was much to prove the con-
tention of the defendant, that the killing of
VIM. Minks was an act of self defense and
justified a verdict of acquittal
JUDGE GARRIsoN's CHARGE.
There was absolute quiet in tbe Court
room throughout Justice Garrison's charge,
which was taken by Stenographer Black for
the DEMOCRAT and which we publish be-
low:
Gentlemen of the ,JurysThere ii very
little, il any, dispute from the testimony
in the sase as to the main points involved
ia the shooting OF Minks and the events
that Immediately preceded it, yet out of the
same transaction the State urges that a
proper verdict would be thar of murder in
/ the first degree, and the counsel fpr the
defendant argues that your verdict should
be that OF acquittal The main division
between these two insistments is that one
imports a crime and the other imports the
absence of crime Now. the law also
recognizes this distinction in its practice,
which is that as to any crime that the jury
is to find they must be satisfied with respect
to the guilt of the defendant of such crime
beyond reasonable doubt-in other words,
the State must sustain it's case by testi-
m0ny that produces upon the jury's minds
result that is beyond any doubt that is
reasonable; whereas, defense which de-
fendant puts forward he is required to sus-
tain not by proof which convlnces the jury
beyond any reasonable doubt but merely
hy proof which satisfies the jury that it has
greater weight of evidence that it is true,
or more probably true than the opposite;
and you have, in tha difference between the
counsel for the State and for the defend
ant these two degrees Of testimony, and
also the tw questi MS at the start Of guilt
or innocence.
Inasmuch as the defendant may prove by
the greater weight of proof the facts upon
which the defense of self defense arises, /
will state to you the law applicable to the
circumstances of this case involved in the
doctrine of self defense Now, the question
is not q am speaking of this case) whether
the actual killing of Minks was necessary.
or seemed to Payne to be necessary In order
to prevent Minks from inhicting grieyous
bodily injury or possibly death upon Payne.
The case put forward by the defendant is
not that the killing, as it finally Tcsu ted,
seemed at the start to be necessary, but
that the production of the frearm at the
time when it was produced was a natural
aud seemingly necessary thing for Payne
to do. The theory of the defense wi b
respect to which considerable testimony
points (which is, on the other hand, CON
tradlcted by other testimony is that how
ever annoying or however insulting Payne's
| language had been. it had not been in any
wise threatening-that he had not threat
Eened any personal injury to Mr.. Minks-
that there was nothing in his conduct
which could have suggested to Minks that
he was about to strike him or shoot him or
infiict any other injury, and that, there
| fore, the unlawful element of the alteFca-
tion between them was begun by totally
unexpected in law a totally uniusti-
fable blow which was received by Payne
Now, the law cannot justify that blow by
Minks. No matter what words had pre-
ceded it-no matter what insults Minks
thought he had a right to avenge, the law
allows no man to infict personal battery
upon the body of another for language,
whether it was addressed to him or to anyone
else So that, in SO far as there was any
thing unlawful between these two men it
began absolutely with Minks About this
transaction there is no dispute. All the
witnesses testified to this b ow. The only
difference is that the States witnesses do
not describe it as severe blow. while DIR.
Clark, for the defendant, testifes that it
was a blow which fractured the bones OF
the face
Then the next fact about which there is
no dispute in the line of the unlawful con-
duct iu this case was that after Payne, as
the result of this blow, was lying on the
sidewalk, Mr.. Minks came outside of his
own property line aud struck Payne again
on the face. which blow no one testifes to
have been a severe one, For tnat assault
also there was no conceivable Justification
in law, Nuw, the theory OF the defense.
based upon these undisputed facts, is that
Payne, having been the suhiecb Of two
assaults neither of which were Unsuitable
in law, saw actions upon the part Of Minks