Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1910-06-28

! a warrant, and the officer replied
"God damn you, I'll take you any.
way" Twisting Meyers arm he hur-
ried him along to the city Jail. When
they turned the corner of the city
Jail, Meyers asked him IL he would
let him phone to DOC" Gibson, the
chief of police, as he believed that
If there were any charges against
him he would know The officer de-
clined to allow him the privilege, and
started to unlock the door of the
hall, preparatory to putting him in
Jail. Breaking away from the officer
and saying, 81 will be damned IL I
will go in there" Meyers sought to
regain his liberty. Turning upon him,
and at the same time saying "By God,
you will go in there" the officer so
Meyers says, reached for his hip
pocket, and at that, says Meyers, II
fired the shot"
That was about 2 o'clock in the
morning, and the officer died at 4
o'clock in the afternoon. There were
two shots fired, one taking effect in
the abdomen, and the other in the
leg, the former being fatal.
Meyers says he did not intend to
fire the second shot, and that he can
not remeber firing It. Frightened
and dazed because of the tragedy in
which he was the central figure, he
fed to the country, but subsequently
of his own volition came to town and
surrendered to the authorities.
Wouldn't Listen to Authorities.
During the trial of the case in the
circuit court Meyers attorneys con-
tended that he was guilty of no crime
They contended that his rights and
his liberty had been unlawfully as
sailed, and that, under the law of
the land he had the right to exer-
else sufficient force to resist this in
vasion, even though it meant the
death of the officer. They further
contended that If he had exercised
more force than was necessary that,
under no circumstances, could he be
charged with murder in the first or
second degree, as, under the law, the
crime could be no greater than man
slaughter.
At the close of the evidence for
the prosecution the defense therefore
moved that the court direct the jury
to find verdict of acquittal of the
defendant of the crimes of murder in
the first and second degrees. The
motion was based on the ground that
the testimony showed that Eckhart
had illegally arrested Meyers, and
that he killed him while trying to
free himself from an illegal arrest,
and that, therefore, no malice was
shown, which is necessary both in
murder of the first and second de-
grees. During the presentation Of
the case Attorney Richardson, of the
defense sought to read authorities
upon this point, but the court de-
clined to listen to them and this is
one of the points cited as error on
appeal.
George Meyers, in his testimony,
is corroborated by HIS brother, in
that he had committed no crime
that he had a right to remain in the
room. Night Patrolman Eckhart, in
his dying declaration, admits that
the brother did not ask him to arrest
George, but only to take him out of
the room. The gun with which Mey-
ers killed the officer with was an
automatic revolver. He used It to
hunt with, and It was in his slicker
at the time he put it on, when the
officer called upon him to accom-
pany him.
What Defense Contends.
The defense contends that the trial
court erred in refusing to grant
motion at the close of the evidence
of the state, which had for its object