Arizona republican., 1917-12-01
RAYNOR'S FhTE |S' UP TO JURY
 IT: VALLEY MEN

The fate of J. L. Raynor was placed in the hands of the jury at 1880 o'clock last evening-the court being in con- tinuous session from early afternoon. Before deliberating the jury was per mitted to go out for dinner with the balllff in charge.
 The greater part of the day was given over to the law points raised in the instructions, the arguments not beginning until o'clock with an hour and a half to the side.
 Robert Jarrott, assistant county at torney, made the opening argument re- viewing the evidence in the case.
 He was followed by P. H. Hayes,
 who declared that Raynor was without | fault in going upon the premises of Calvin Heath for the purpose of cut
 ting the dyke and preventing his own | lands from being ruined. He described
 the little. home the result of three
 years toll on the part of the defendant,
 and which was being reduced to utter
 worthlessness. Pointing out the right
 of Raynor to protect his own, counsel
 further declared that when he was as
 saulted by Heath he had the right to | resist force by force.
 County attorney L. M. Laney con- tended that there was not a scintilla of | evidence that Heath had attacked
 Raynor. He recalled the fact that many | of the witnesses were relatives and close friends of the defense-interest
 ed in the outcome of the case and against their testimony he weighed
 that of H. J. Thompson an eye witness
 to the crime. Heath, unarmed, had
 been quietly arguing with Raynor, who
 carried a gun and who was angrily
 discussing the situation while behind
 Raynor was his son with a shovel and
 his son-in-law, armed in the same
 fashion. Heath had made no move to assault according to Thompson, said the county attorney.
 "The law of self defense is founded
 upon necessity, and in order to justify
 the taking of life upon this ground . it must not only appear that the de- fendant had reason to believe, and did . believe that he was in danger of his
 life, or of receiving great bodily harm . but it must also have appeared to the , defendants comprehension as a req
 sonable person, that to avoid sucf l danger it was absolutely necessary fol
 him to take the life of the deceased"
 The jury made a request for the maI T of the adjoining ranches in Avondale U the scene of the murder. which wa. II used in the case. It also asked per mission to take the instructions to the $ jury room both of which demands wer granted. Four forms of verdict were read, murder in the first degree, mur der in the second degree, manslaughte o and not guilty.
 $ The instructions were lengthy, fev II items which seemed to impress tn = jury especially when read by Judg c Stanford were:
 e I instruct you as a matter of lay = that the conduct of the deceased in di @ verting the waters of the Agua Fri
 river and permitting them to flood tn e premises of the defendant constitute e what is known in law as nuisance it and that the defendant had the righ y for the purpose of abating such nuis s. ance to enter upon the deceased If premises at the place where such nuis d ance was being maintained. and us y whatever means became necessary le protect and defend his own propert
 from injury, provided his act of abat of ing such nuisance did not constitut le a breach of the peace.
 d, I further instruct you that if the de l. fendant had reason to believe, and di is believe the exercise of his legal right )f in going upon the premises of de IT ceased and there diverting the wate t. from the defendants own premise
 would result in a struggle or conflic I, ne might arm or OtnerWlSe pTepal in himself A person has a right to 2 of armed in the exercise of his leg; D. rights even though by exercising sue le rights he puts himself in the way l. being attacked.
 T. I instruct you that the fact tn; B. defendant went upon the deceased at premises armed, did not of itself d. k, prive the defendant of the right le self -defenSe. The law justifies the il e. dividual wS>. stays his adversary in h le own necessary self-defense.
 I instruct you as matter of lax 1- that a person may lawfully oppoS ne force by force in protecting his proI S. erty, and if while so doing he is as S: saulted by another he is not oblige i- to retreat or call upon bystanders e. protect him, but may stand his grour o and resist such assault, and if sue assault is committed under circun " stances that would cause a reasonab til person to fear that he is in danger " death or serious bodily harm, he ma oa 9 slay his assailant, and the law wi nd justify the act.