El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1916-04-15
". H. M'NEN ACQUITTED0 MURDER
Of R. |. RALEY At OROGRANDE, MN.
Judge Instucs the Jury TIL at if Man Has Reason to Be-
lieve That He is in Danger From Another, He May
Kill Sin Self Defence" Appearance of Raley on
Road With Shotgun Was Sufficient He Says.

, danger of great bodily harm to him
| from such assault or attempted assault
] and II the defendant believed at the
| time the fatal shot was fired. if he fired
! II, in the existence Of such imminent
| danger, this belief under such circum-
stances furnishes as complete a de-
fence FOR the defendant as if the dan
ger actually existed.
Must BE Reasonable Ground.
You are instructed that before the
defendant would be justified I'm killing
the deceased, it must appear from the
evidence that there was a reasonable
ground on the part of the defendant to
apprehend a design on the part Of the
deceased. Robert l.. Raley, to do him
great personal injury, and that at the
time there was imminent danger OF
such design being accomplished and
THAI the defendant then and there hon
estly believed that he was then in i'm
minent danger OF then and there re
ceiving from the deceased, Robert L.
Raley, some great personal injury and
that the said deceased, Robert [. RaIey.
was in position and had the ability
then and there to do the defendant
great bodily harm. and that the facts
and circumstances were at the time
sufficient to create in the mind of the
defendant an honest belief that he was
then in imminent danger of receiving
some personal injury from the de-
ceased"
Man May Imagine Danger.
That while no actual danger may ex-
list, defendant may act I'm his defence
II he thinks the danger present is set
forth as follows: you are instructed
that II is not essential to the right Of
self defence that the danger should in
fact exist if to the defendant it rea-
sOnably appeared that the danger in
fact existed, he had the right to de-
fend against il to the same extent and
under the same rules which would OBJ
tain in case the danger had been real
The defendant may always act upon
reasonable appearances of danger. and
whether the danger is apparent or not
is always to be determined from the
standpoint from which the defendant
viewed it at the time he acted"
Vengeance Not Defence.
The right of attack is excluded from
the law Of self defence. under this in
structiOn from the court: 1.-The law of
self defence does not imply the right
of attack. nor will il permit acts done
in retaliation or for revenge. And if
you believe from the evidence. beyond
a reasonable doubt. that the defendant
sought brought on or voluntarily en-
tered into a difficulty with the de-
ceased for the purpose Of wreaking
vengeance upon him, then the defendant
can not avail himself OF the law Of self
defence. and you should not acquit him
on that ground"
ported encounter on the public road, be-
tween the automobile and the buggy,
the instructions contain the following
Language: IF you believe from the evil
dence that on the day of the alleged
homicide, while the defendant was
along a public highway he
was encountered by the deceased armed
with n deadly weapon with which the
deceased advanced upon the defendant
IN a threatening manner and that the
defendant thereupon retreated TO the
lomicile Of the witness. ColthOrp. and
hat he was there pursued by the de-
,eased armed with n shotgun and that
he deceased bearing said shotgun in
lis hands attempted to enter the gate
eading into the house where the de-
endant had retreated. conducting him
eld and handling said deadly weapon
n such a manner as to create in the /
mind Of an ordinarily prudent man the I
ionest conviction that he was then and (
here in imminent danger Of losing his /
ife or Of suffering great bodily harm I
{ the hands of the said deceased and !
hat the defendant acted upon such /
Onest conviction and being so con- 4
inced and so acting. then and there /
ired the fatal shot you are instructed /
hat il is your duty to acquit the de-