Year: 1867

Colonel Johnson continued his argu-
ment Amos intended that statement to
mean that Ash Levy was swindler; that
he would put money into his pocket and
never account for it to Mr.. Ballard. There
was no provocation for this remark, yet
Amos goes and wilfully, grossly insults
this old man while he Is attending to his
business. Neither he nor his sons had said
or done anything to provoke this insult.
Mr.. Levy simply says to Amos: "Get out
of here, you scoundrel." 1t was an i'm
mediate retort to unprovoked insults
heaped upon an infrm old man by an
athletic young man who had nothing
to do with the business. After this
legitimate retort, this herculean Amos
approaches this old man and strikes
him-strikes him on the elbow as the arm
is thrown up to ward off the blow with
such force as to cause it to be bruised and
blackened to this day. During this attack,
this aged, weak old man neither strikes nor
attempts to strike blow. He retreats
from Amos until retreat is no longer posi-
BILE. Amos closes in with him, seizes him
by the collar, and throttles him. He cries
for help. His two sons are present. His
son, mere STRIPPING, sees his father, weak
and powerless, in the hands Of this Her
cules Of the city," No one else is there |;
all who could make anything like resist
ance to this giant, who is beating this poor,
infrm man, have left the room. What is
he to do? Here the Colonel read from
Blackstone the law about private wrongs,
which stated "that the defence of ones
self or ones near relation, if he be forcibly
attacked in person or property, was lawful,
and it was right to repel force with force,
and the breach Of the peace is only charge
able to him who commences the affray."


As have before said, the men who
were able to successfully interpose in this
affair had left the room. For this STRIPPING
(pointing to Moses to have interfered
with his hands would have been simply an
absurdity, as the court will readily admit.
What could he do? Had he gone for
policeman, what would have become of his
father in the power of this giant? He
would have been severely beaten, perhaps
killed, or MANNED and dis6gured for life.
The law expressly states what shall be
done in an affair Of this kind. From
the commencement to the end of the
affair Amos was in the wrong. He had in
suited and struck an old man IN the pre-
sence of his sons; had received no blows
nor insults in return up to the time of his
being shot. Moses shot him. What
son would not shoot a man who had
insulted and beat his father? None.
But Moses only shot Amos enough
to make him desist. lie could have shot
with the remaining loads until he was
dead. But, on the contrary, when Amos
asked him not to shoot, he said 81 will
not hurt hair of your head; just let my
father alone" Under these circumstances
the shooting was legal and for these rea-
sons I ask the discharge of Moses Levy.
AS to Mordecai Levy's course in the affair,
he did nothing. The testimony does not
confirm the statement Of Amos, that he
told his brother Moses to shoot him. /
now ask that both Of the accused be dis
charged.


The Mayor discharged the accused,
giving as his reason that the law justified
a man when assaulted in defending him
self, and consequently son was justified
in defending his father if he was attacked
and unable to defend himself, as was the
case in this instance.