Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1909-03-18

Ordinary man. 3uu EeuucT MN A~
| to do an act which might cause
death.
previous threats by the deceased
! AGAINST the defendants. or acts o
hostility toward. or previous abus'
of him. howsocver violent II may be
IA not such proyocaton as the Law
recognizes az sufficient to reduce al
MnIawful killing 10 manslaughter. u
the killing was done at such time
after these things had been done al
a reasonable peIson would have re
gained self control
( On Reasonable Doubt.
OF reasonable doubt Judge llar'
said:
Absolute certainty Is not demand
ed by the law 10 convict OF any crilhl
nal charge, but moral certainty Is re-
quire1.
The law OF self defense Is thus
defined by our supreme court:
TO excuse homicide. the danger
ef death, or great bodily injury, must
either be real or honestly believed
10 be 30 at the time and upon sum
cient grounds.
1T must be apparent and imminent
Previous threats and even acts Oh
hostility. how violent soever they may
be will not Of themselves. excuse. the
staying.
Danger Nus. be Imminent.
ITO constitute this defense. the De-
lief or apprehension Of danger mus.
be founded ON sufficient circumstances
to authorize the opinion that the
deadly purpose then existed. and the
fear that it will at that time be ex'
ecuted. The animosity OF the de-
ceased agains: the defendants as indi.
Gated by words or actions, then and
before, is a proper matter for the con-
sideration of the jury on the question
OF reasonable apprehension. but II the
killing is not done under the fear II
Is calculated to inspire. or the rear
Is feigned or pretended. the defense
will not be available.
1T il hardly necessary to say thar
the real or apparent necessity brought
about by the design. fault or contri-
vance CT the defendants IL no excuse,
but If the fear OF a less injury than
death or great bodily injury be inh''
Gated by the proIf. then the grade
O. the offense would be lessened
though 1t all be Intellectual as self
defense"
Affirmative Witness Superior.
Judge Hart said that ordinarily a
witness who testifies to an affirma-
tive is to be preferred TO one who
testifies TO a negative.
Defining conspiracy the court said:
1T is not necessary IN order that
they become conspirators that they
should talk the matter over and agree
as to what portion each one should
perform. 1t Is sufficient If there ID
a tacit understanding between them.
THE State insists tina, John D..
Sharp was near by, II necessary. to
participate in any way that mi ght be
necessary in the killing, or was there
for the purpose Of making himself a
witness. II you believe this to be
true it would become your duty 10
convict all OF the defendants Of muir
der In the first degree.
Intent OF the Accused.
"Or If you believe that d. b.
Cooper 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 a note for
the purpose Of sending 1t to said
Carmack. stating in substance what
had already been sent In message
by Mr.. Craig to the deceased. and
that he did not send the note at the
solicitation Of friends. bu; on seeing
Carmack. his intention to take Car
mack's life. was revived. IL he ever
had 1t. and he formed al that time a
fixed purpose to carry that Intention
into execution. and crossed the street
for that purpose. either to open a
fight directly on their getting to
gether, or having a conversation with
him. Intending thereby to bring on
a fight. and il the said E. w. Car
mack resisted. to take his life. and
that Rcbin Cooper was present. In
tending 10 assist his father in any and
all extrcmities. and under any and
all circumstances, 1t would be for you
to determine whether or not the ap