The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1914-04-09

for taking the life of his assailant un-
less the facts as they thus appeared
would have justified reasonable be-
lief that there existed an actual nee
essity for it.
No. ID. In the case at bar you
should give the defendant the bene-
mt of every fact which was apparent
to or known to him at the time which
| would give him any reasonable indi-
cation of the extent of the danger.
He cannot be excused if he acted on
an unreasonable conclusion as to the
danger based on facts as known to
him. The question is, not what con-
clusion did he in fact draw from the
circumstances, but what conclusion
ought reasonably to have been drawn
| from them at the time.
No. 49, The court instructs the
jury that the danger which will JUS
tify killing in self-defense need not
be real, but only such as would lead
reasonable, prudent man to believe
in it's reality; and in estimating the
danger and imminence of the dan
ger and in the choice of means to
avoid it, or the amount of force to
be used in repelling it, the excite
ment and confusion of the surround
ing circumstances must be consider
ed. and the party assaled is not
held to the same cool and DELHI
crate Judgment in estimating the
polling it as is possible to persons
unaffected by excitement or danger
in subsequently contemplating the
situation,
No. 1G. If you find from the evil
dence that from previous attack
of the deceased upon the defendant,
and threats previously made by him
against the defendant, and that de-
ceased was a man of dangerous,
quarrelsome, indicative, vicious and
violent character, which fact was
known to the defendant, and that the
defendant had reasonable ground to
believe, and in fact did believe that
deceased intended to take his life, or
inflict upon him some great bodily
injury, and so believing, armed him
self with a revolver, solely for neces-
sary self-defense in the event of be-
ing attacked, the defendants arm
ing himself after the assault made
upon him by the Lubbock Hotel,
would not be, evidence Of malice or
intent, for if the defendant armed
himself solely for self-defense, and,
on meeting his adversary afterwards
killed him, the degree of the offense,
is to be determined from the circum-
stances surrounding the killing and
not from his previously having arm
ed himself for self-defense.
No. II. You are instructed that
| if you find from the evidence that
the defendant had reason to believe
and did believe that the deceased was
in the act of assaulting the defend
ant with a weapon with which, un-
der the circumstances, the deceased
could have taken the defendants life,
or inflicted great bodily injury, and
if the danger was apparently SO i'm
mediate and threatening as to not
halloW defendant to safely retire from
the assault or delay in defending
. himself therefrom without apparent
danger to his life or great bodily in
jury, and he reasonably believed
himself in imminent danger of death
or great bodily injury, the defendant
is not required to retreat, but he's
may kill his assailant, and the homi-
eide will be justified.
No. IS. If the deceased on Satur-
day evening, April 18th, 1913, drew
a revolver on the defendant and
threatened to kill him then or at
some future time, and the defendant
believed, and as reasonable man
had right to believe that the de- !
ceased would carry his threa, into |
execution, and SO believing, armed |
himself for the purpose Of defend
ing himself from such threatened as
sault, the defendant was acting with
in his legal right in so arming him
self.
No. 49, If you find from the evil
dence that the defendant was on his
way to the Ross Drug Store for the
purpose of purch asing cigar, or wit
Messing rattle when he first learned
that Woodland was in town and at
said drug store. he would still be act
ing entirely within his legal rights in
going to said drug store in accord
ance with his original purpose, not
the presence of Wood
ard. But, if you find from the evil
1ence, beyond reasonable doubt,
that the defendant knowing that
Woodland was at said drug store, with
malice in his heart, armed himself
and went to said drug store with the
intent and purpose of provoking a
quarrel Or difficulty with Woodland,
n order to create an opportunity to |
;lay him, and that the defendant did,
pursuant to his said intent and pur-
pose, go to said drug store. and ,
hen and there, by acts and words s
vas guilty of such conduct as would
provoke an ordinary self-respecting
md courageous man to commit an I
assault upon him, the defendant, I
Is more fully defined in instruction
No. FL, and because of such provo 5
:ation, Woodland did assault the de- :
endant then, in that case, the de-
endant cannot avail himself of the I,
,lea of self-defense in killing Wood .
Ird, though such killing may have Z
'ecome necessary to preserve the de-
endant's life or his person from I
treat bodily injury q
No. TO- But if you find from the t
that the defendant, know a
ng that Woodland was at said drug c