Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1909-03-17

eide. the danger of death or great bodily
injury must either be real or honestly
believed to be so. at the time and upon
sufficient grounds. 1t must be apparent
and Imminent. Previous threats. an
overt act of hostility. how violent soever
they may be, will not. of themselves eN-
cuse the staying. but there must be some
words or overt act-that is. come open.
manifest, perceptible act--at the time.
clearly Indicative of a present purpose 10
do the injury Whether there was at the
time. such an overt act on the part or the
deceased toward the defendant. and what
or what would not be such overt act on
his part, is a matter for you. the jury, 10
decide upon all the circumstances ana
facts shown in the proof of previous
friendship of hostility. and all the other
surroundings of the case.
Reasonable Doubt.
Judge Hart next explained reason
able doubt and its application to case
where murder is charged. and then SCI
forth the law of self-defense.
Concerning self-defense. he said:
Past threats or hostile actions, or
antecedent circumstances can only be
looked to in connection with present
demonstrations as grounds of apprehen-
sion on the part of the person doing the
killing.
ITO cons itute this defense. the be-
lief of apprehension of danger must De
founded on sufficient circumstances to
authorize the opinion that the deadly
purpose then existed and the fear that
IL will at that time be executed me
luminosity of the deceased against the
defendant as indicated by words or ac-
tions then and before Is proper mat
ter for the consideration of the jury, on
the question of reasonable apprehension
Even If sufficient cause does exist lor
apprehension. but if the killing is not
done under the fear it is calculated to
inspire, or the fear is feigned or pre-
tended, the defense will not be avail
able.
so a case must not only show rea-
sonable grounds-such as fear of death
or great bodily harm-but must snow
that such fear was entertained ana tne
killing done under an honest and Wen
founded belief that 1t was absolutely
necessary to kill the deceased that
time to save himself from like IN
jury or from great bodily harm Ihese
rights of defending ones person exist
and continue so long as the proof shows
you that this danger is presen ana I'M
minent and no longer or honestly De
lieved to be SO on reasonable grounds
Penalty Provided by Law.
Judge Hart then gave the law as to
nunishment for the various degrees of
murder, ranging from death by hanging
to imprisonment in the penitentiary TOT
not less than one year nor more than
five years. or imprisonment in the county
Jail for any period of time less than
twelve months.
A full, fair and impartial consideration
of all the evidence adduced in the case
was directed by the judge. who also ex.
planned the consideration of the general
character. the manner and the consistency
or inconsistency of the defendants upon
the witness stand. like all other witnesses.
to determine what weight shall be given
this testimony.
The law as to conspiracy was next set
forth in the charge. Judge Hart re-
viewed the proof brought out In regard
to the trouble between Col. Cooper and
Mr.. Carmack and that connected with
the tragedy.
If. Judge Hart said, Col. Cooper and
Robin Cooper started across the street
toward Mr.. Carmack on a peaceful mis-
sion and with the sole purpose of having
a conversation and Carmack fired upon
them first, they had right to defend
themselves: otherwise they could not set
up the plea of self-defense.