The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1909-03-20

'i'S' NOW Vlolent soever they may be
VIII not Of themselves excuse the
Staying.
TO constitute this defense, the be-
hef or apprehension Of danger must
be founded on sufficient circumstan-
ces to authorize the opinion that tha
deadly purpose then existed and tha
fear that it will at that time be exc
cuted. The animosity OF the deceased
against the defendants, as indicated
by words or actions then and before.
is proper matter for the considera
ton of the jury on the question Of
reasonable apprehension, but if the
killing is not done under the fear it
IS calculated to inspire, or the fear
is feigned or pretended, the defense
will not be available.
1T is hardly necessary to say that
the real or apparent necessity
brought about by the design, fault or
contrivance of the defendants is no
excuse, but If the fear of a. less in
jury than death or great bodily harm
be indicated by the proof then the
grade Of the offense would be lessen
ed. though it would be Intellectual as
self-defense."
Judge Hart said that ordinarily a
witness who testifies to an affirmative
10 70 ho
to negative.
Defining conspiracy the court said:
1T is not necessary, in order that
they become co-conspirators, that
they should talk the matter over and
agree as to what portion each one
should perform. 1t is sufficient #
there Isl q. tacit understanding be-
tween them.
THE State insists that John d,
Sharp was nearby, if necessary to
participate in any way that might be
necessary in the killing, or was there
for the purpose of making himself a
witness. If you believe this to be
true, it would be your duty to con-
vict all of the defendants of murder
in the first degree.
'Or If you believe that D. b. Coop
er had threatened the life of Carmack
that he said he was going to kill him,
or one or the other of them must die,
or that the town would not be big
enough to hold them both, and that
he had written note for the purpose
of sending to said Carmack, stating in
substance what had already been sent
In a message by Mr.. Craig to the de-
ceased, and that he did not send the
note at the solicitation of his friends.
but ON seeing Senator Carmack his
intention 10 take Carmack's life was
revived, If he ever had it, and that
he formed at that time a fixed pu--
pose to carry that intent into execu-
ton. and crossed the street for that
purpose, either to open a fight direct
ly on their getting together or having
a conversation with him, intending
thereby to bring on a fight and if
the said +. w. Carmack resisted, to
take his life, and that Robin Cooper
was present, intending to assist his
father in any and all extremes and un-
der any and all circumstances, it would
be for you to determine whether or
not the approaching of Col Cooper
and the language used by him as he
approached, if any was used, was
such an overt act as would reasona-
bly, cause the deceased to believe that
he, the defendant, d. B. Cooper
was about to carry his alleged threat
into execution and that he was ap-
preached by both of them in this
manner and form and had reason to
believe that his life was about to be
taken or done some great bodily harm
in that event he would have the
right to defend himself from the
threatened attack, and if the defend
ants, d. b. Cooper and Robin Cooper,
thus approached and he fired the
first shot or shots under these cir
cumstances and they returned the
fire, either one or both of them, and
took his life and caused his death.
in that event, gentlemen, the defend
ants could not avail themselves of
the right Of self-defense unless there
was something to show the deceased.
either by words or action, that they
had abandoned their purpose, If they
ever had any, and did not mean to
carry the alleged threats in.
to execution. But, whether
there was or was not an overt act on
the part Of the defendants, D. B..
Cooper and Robin Cooper, is a matter