Danville intelligencer. [volume] (Danville, Pa.) 1859-1907, 1906-06-08

men, which was testified to. Men kill,
he said, for greed, for revenge, for
passion, but they do not kill their
friends for fun. 1t was not the aim
of the defense, he said, to show that
Dietrich killed Jones and then to try
to" excuse him because he was drunk.
The shooting was an accident and an
accident only.
Dietrich's guilt or innocence, Mr..
Ikeler said, hinges wholly upon the
testimony of DR.. Paules, wherein he
stated that Dietrich said 81 shot him
just where I aimed, etc. " This re-
mark, he said. was wholly irrational,
due to Dietrich's highly excited state.
He puttit side by side with the defend
ants contradictory statements-frst
that the shooting was accidental"
and then that he shot in self defense"
to show that it was the incoherent
rambling remark of highly excited
and for the moment, irresponsible man.
who didn't know what he was talking
about.
At IL :25 O'Clock Judge Evans began
his charge so the jury, speaking for
about half an hour and covering the
ground very fully and impartially. He
defined murder Ill the first degree,
murder in the second degree and vol
untary manslaughter and reviewing
the testimony closely showed the jury
that their verdict must be either mur-
der in the first degree, murder i'll the
second degree, voluntary manslaughter
or acquittal.
1t first remains for the jury to de-
eide whether murder was committed
or in other words, whether there was
malice-any attempt to kill or to do
bodily harm, from which death result
ed. To constitute first degree murder,
the act must have been wilful, deliber-
ate and premeditated-ther must have
been an intention to take life with a
previously formed intent. If premedit-
| alton is absent, if homicide is commit
ted without any intention to take life,
| then it is murder in the second degree.
1t was for the jury to decide wheth-
er there was malice or intention on
the part of Dietrich to kill Jones or to
do him bodily harm. If there was no
intention or malice, then the crime
might be manslaughter. If murder, it
was for the jury to decide whether it
was murder in the first or in the Sec
ond degree.
Intoxication is no excuse for mur-
der. Intoxication, however, may be
made the ground for murder in the
second degree, as it clouds the mind
and precludes design. The jury was
left to decide whether the defendant
| owing to intoXication was able to form
clear deliberate and premeditated
design to take life. If he was not in
that condition, then it may be murder
in the second degree. If the jury be-
lieved that the killing was purely ac-
cidental then it was its duty to acquit
the defendant.
| The second homicide case, that of
| Commonwealth VS.. John Sees was at
tached Immediately after noon. Sees,
| looking none the worse for his long
confinement of nearly year was on
hand and took his seat by his attorney
| Charles V. Amerman. Sees father
and mother along with the witnesses
in the case were in court.
The calling of the jury was immedi.
ately proceeded with. AS in the case
of the preceding trial there were a
large number of challenges, mostly
from the defense. The jurymen were
examined and accepted or rejected as
follows:
Isaac Rank, second ward, Danville
accepted.
Rush challenged perempt.
orily by defense.
Neal p. Wilson-challenge fol
cause by defense.
Jacob Aten-challenged peremptori.
ly by defense.
Elias Lyon-challenged peremptori-
ly by defense.
Wesley Hartzell-challenged fol
cause by defense.
Isaac Acor-accepted
| Calvin O. Ritter-accepted.
P. +. Brennen-challenge peremp-
torily by Commonwealth.
r. J. challenged or cause by
| Commonwealth.
| William E. Heller-accepted.
| Patrick McBryan-accepted.
Robert Mellin-chalIenged peremp-
torily by defense.
| Ambrose A. Love-challenged per-
emptorily by Commonwealth.
| Frank Straub-challenge for cause
by Commonwealth.
| William Roat-accepted.
| Edward Hallman-challeng per-
emptorily by defense.
Jerry Donovan-challenge for cause
by defense.
Daniel Bomboy-challenge for
| oor,a Inv, Cop,,,onuaoItb