El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1916-04-15
LAMoGoRDo. y. NJ. April /

4 LAMOGORDO. y. NJ. April IS
~ Not guilty" was the verde
- which the jury rendered lat,
yesterday afternoon, after having DELHI
Grated only 10 minutes. in the case OF
William II. McNew, charged with the
murder Of Robert J.. Raley, at Oro-
Frande Sept. 23, 1915. Expecting a quick
verdict many Of those in the audience
remained in the court room and waited
for the jury to report There was nc
audible demonstration Of any kind, but
a great many friends went forward and
shook hands with the defendant and his
wife Mrs McNeW had remained in the
Raley. used as the prosecuting witness,
was not placed under the rule, but sat
with counsel for the state all the time
she was not on the witness stand.
Mayor Tom Lea, Of FL Paso, assist
Ing in the defence, was summoned to
FL Paso just after he had concluded his
address TO the jury and left on the
westbOund limited. II. B. Holt Of Las
Cruces. and Edwin Mechem. OF Alamo
ROrdO, were the other members Of cOun-
sci for the defence. after the failure 10
get in the testimony of A. J. Newsom,
manager OF the AlamogOrdo telephone
exchange, and Allen Culver, justice OF
the peace of the Orogrande precinct, the
state changed its plan and did not try
10 offer any further testimony in rebus-
tai.
The DecOy Note.
The theory Of the mysterious muir
der note" which, it was alleged by the
safe, had been used to decoy Raley to
Colthorps hotel. where he was killed
~ McNew, was vigorously assailed by
Hll three attorneys for the defence, in
heir arsuments TO the jury. Holt said:
1t Is an insult TO your intelligence, for
The special counsel for the prosecution
% ask you, and to ask the public gem
orally. TO believe this astounding and
sbsurd statement concerning the decoy
lOte." Attorney Lawson, assistant
counsel for the prosecution. undertook
~ his argument to tell the jury what
be might have proved FOR the prOsecu-
ton. but refrained from doing. This
brought forth an objection which was
sustained. the court instructing the jury
TO disregard the statement.
A. 10 Self Defence.
The courts rulings as to what a man
has the right to do in self defence are
especially interesting The plea Of the
defence in. this case was self defence
The instructions upon this point are
as follows:
And if you believe from the evidence
that on the occasion Of the shooting.
wounding and killing Of the said Rob
ert J.. Raley, If he was killed. the said
Robert l.. Raley made violent assault
or attempted 10 make a violent assault
upon the defendant with a loaded shot
gun. and that such assault or attempt
ed assault was imminently perilous to
the life Of the defendant or placed him
in imminent peril of great bodily harm
from the said Robert L. Raley, or such
assault or attempted assault appeared
imminently perilous TO the life of
the defendant or appeared to place
him in imminent peril of great bodily
harm from the said Robert /. Raley.
and that the defendant in order to save
his own life. or 70 save himself from
great bodily harm, shot the deceased, [
then you are instructed that such kill
ing would be justifiable and excvsable, /
and you viii in that event acquit the 1
defendant.
An Assault.
"An assault is an unlawful attempt, /
coupled with a present ability to COM /
nit a violent injury upon the person |
Of another.
Although there may have been no
actual danger 10 the life OF the de- /
or danger OF great bodily 4
harm TO him from the assault or at
tempted assault Of the deceased. If such
assault was made, still. If the circum-
stances surrounding the same were
such as TO cause an ordinarily prudent /
nan TO believe that there was immi-
cent danger TO his life or imminent !