Danville intelligencer. [volume] (Danville, Pa.) 1859-1907, 1906-09-28

where aimed at. ~
At 10 80 O'Clock the Commonwealth
rested. Mr.. Ikeler explained that the
witnesses on the Commonwealth side
embraced all the eye witnesses of the
shooting and that the testimony had
been very fully presented. In view of
this and the fact that the defendant
was in such a nervous and highly
wrought condition at the time of the
shooting as to be hardly competent
witness the defense had resolved to
offer no testimony in the case.
1t was then 10 :25 O'Clock and the
court after consulting with the attor-
neys, in order that the addresses to
the jury might follow each other,
without any interruption, decided to
adjourn court and reconvene at l
O'Clock instead of at 2. the usual after
noon hour.
After court convened at l o'clock
Hon. H. NJ. Hinckley for the Com
monwealth went to the jury. The adj
dress, which lasted nearly an hour and
a half, covered the ground in its en-
tirety and ranked with the most effec-
tive efforts of Mr.. Hjnokley's life. He
declared that the evidence clearly
showed malice and motive-that when
| Dietrich brought out the revolver he
intended to use it and that the theory
of accident in the premises was not
| tenable. He claimed that the pistol
did not go off accidentally, as before
| it could be discharged it was neces
sary to draw the hammer back to full
| position, which in itself showed that
phasized this point very strongly. He
| quoted the evidence fully to show that
Dietrich not only when he made
damaging admissions, but also when
tional and knew what he was about.
He held that all the evidence justified
verdict of murder in the first de-
gree.
the jury for the defense. Mr.. Ikelers
address was likewise very able and
eloquent effort. In beginning, he paid
fine tribute to the ability, eloquence
and persuasive powers of Mr.. Hinck
ley. In this case, lie said. he was not
afraid of the evidence, but he admitt
ed he was "afraid of Judge Hinck-
ley" He dwelt upon the distinctions
30 I, IL TO- l., nf h.,
being and he said we have advanced
beyond the old Mosaic principle of an
eye for an eye,a tooth for tooth. He
defined murder as when man in the
blackness of his heart, with malice
aforethought and with a set determi
nation lies in wait for human being
to take his life and denied that any
of the elements are present in Diet
murder in any of its degrees nor even
manslaughter in the case on trial. He
held that Dietrich was on the verge of
delirium tremens and reviewed the
evidence dwelling upon his excited
state to show that he was wholly IRA
tional both when he did.the shooting
and when he made the admissions in
jail Mr. Ikeler held that if Dietrich
is guilty at all he is guilty only of in
voluntary manslaughter, which in his
case would imply careless and reck
less use of weapon. He denounced
the Indictment, which premlts only
,la,, xDf, 30 4 I,,,,
tary manslaughter. Many in the audi
ence were moved to tears while Mr..
Ikeler with the wonderful eloquence
at his command drew graphic and
pathetic picture to show how the pri-
soner has suffered in his varied expert
ences since the tragedy. and that he
has already been punished sufficiently
for the slight degree .inswhich.he may
be guilty. Mr.. Ikeier spoke for an
hour and half.
g.. Judge Evans Immediately followed
with his charge to the Jury. He .ex-
planned the law applicable to the case
very fully and his charge was very
favorably commented on. Judge Evans
defined murder in the first degree, MUIR
der in the second degree and voluntary
manslaughter. To constitute murder
in the first degree the killing must be
with malice, which means any attempt
to kill or do any great bodily harm. 1t
must be shown that the attempt to
take life was wilful and deliberate
following previously formed intent.
In second degree murder felonious homi |
eide is committed, but without any
deliberate attempt to take life. MAN. |
slaughter is still lesser degree where |
ing of another without malice express
ed or implied. Should the jury be in
doubt whether the defendant is guilty
of murder in the irst or the second
degree he is to have the benefit of that
doubt and the verdict must be the low
er of the two degrees.
Intoxication is no excuse for murder
in the first degree. Intoxication, how
ever, may becloud the mind, preclud-
ing malice and design, bringing the
crime in some cases down to second
degree murder. When person. how
ever, becomes intoxicated for the pur-
pose of committing murder and the
killing of another follows it is murder
in the first degree. If the jury believes
that the defendant was intoxicated
when he killed Jones it is for them to
determine whether he was intoxicated
to the extent that he could not form a
design or plan deliberately to commit
the act. If he was not so deeply in
toxicated, then his intoxication must
go for naught.
If the iury believes that Jones came