Year: 1872

fng personal violence to any person dwefnng or living therein. A bare fear of any of these offences to prevent which the homi- eide is alleged to have been committed shall not be sufficient to justify the killing. It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of reasonable person, and the party killing. acted under the | influence of those fears and not in & spirit of revenge.

 | If person kill another in self defense, it must appear that the danger was So urgent and pressing, that in order to save his own life and prevent his receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and it must appear also that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeav ored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.

 If the killing be proved, the burden of proving the circumstances in mitigation, or that they justify or excuse the homicide, de- wolves on the accused, unless the proof on the part of the prosecution sufficiently manifests that the crime committed only amounts to manslaughter, or that the accused was justi- fled or excusable in committing the homicide

 fla man designing and attempting to kill A, kills R by mistake, the grade of the crime is the same as if he had killed A and if the design and endeavor to kill A was unlawful, and with malice aforethought, the killing of B, in the prosecution of such design, is murder.

 If homicide is committed in an attempt and with the intent to commit felony, it is murder

 A felony is public offence, punishable by death or by imprisonment in the Territorial pnson.

 If it legally appears that the accused has committed either the crime of murder or manslaughter, and there is A reasonable doubt AS to which offence has been committed, he can be properly convicted of manslsughter only.

 In civil cases, the verdict Is ordinarily to be given to the party in whose favor the proof

 predominates but in criminal cases, the rule

 Is different, and the prosecution must prove , the defendants guilt beyond Q reasonable doubt, for in criminal cases, the defendant is

 presumed to be innocent until the contrary be proved. and in case of a reasonable doubt whether his guilt be satisfactorily proved, he

 is entitled to be acquitted.

 If. in the course of this trial, or in the charge now given, the jury should think they

 have any indication as to the opinion of the Court as to the facts of this case, they are

 instructed not to allow themselves to be in any degree influenced thereby. The Court

 has no right to indicate to you it's opinion upon the facts, either in the progress of the trial, nor in its charge to the jury. The ju- " are the sole judges of the facts in the case,

 but should accept the law as given by the Court.

 , The defendent might have testified in this case, had he so chosen, but it is my duty to instruct you that his declining to do so must , not be construed by you as raising any pre- sumption, whatever, against him. ' In considering whether or not the homi- eide, if any has been proven, was committed with malice and it appear there had been a previous provocation, it is proper for the jury to look to the acts and conduct of the , defendant, if the same be proof in the interim between the time of such provocation

 and the killing, and learn whether or not, he acted with deliberatiOn and coolness, or was , frenzied with passion.

 Gentlemen, you have high and solemn duty to perform. Discharge it faithfully, courageously and justly. It is your sworn

 duty to find your verdict according to the

 law and evidence; you have no discretion in the matter to do otherwise. If the evi- dence, according to your best judgment war rants a conviction, you are not at liberty to acquit if, on the other hand, the proofs do

 not so warrant conviction, you are not at

 liberty to convict the prisoner. The life or

 the liberty of a citizen is hanging on your verdict. So also are the highest interests of society, which can only be preserved by a faithful and impartial administration of the

 law for the punishment of crime So dis charge your duty, gentlemen, that neither the prisoner on the one hand, nor the con- munity on the other, can rightly accuse you

 of having failed to act justly and impartially

 in the discharge of the high duty to which

 you have been called.

 If you find the defendant guilty of mur-

 der, your verdict will be, i've, the jury, find the defendant guilty" If of manslaughter, "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of

 manslaughter." If you acquit the prisoner,

 your verdict will be, !" not guilty" c. A. TWEED, Judge. And, now, after having devoted so much

 of our time, labor and space, to giving de-

 tailed statement of the proceedings in this

 murder case, which, we hope, will be the last

 to take place in Prescott, it may not be amiss

 for us to state, publicly, what all good citi

 zens here know to be facts, that, although

 the sentiment of our people throughout this trial, was strongly in favor of seeing justice

 done, come what might, there was no pres

 sure brought to bear upon Judge, witnesses or jurors that might initiate against tht

 prisoner; nor would Judge, jury or witnesse

 have listened to anything of the sort. Ant what glorious trait was this to be develop

 ed in American character And how differ ! ent would have been the feeling had it beer Mexican judge, jury and witnesses who were trying an American, under the flag ano laws of Mexico, for the killing of Mexican citizen? Let the recent acts of the Mexican Government, and of that of the Mexican State of Sonora, in shielding the Mexican murderers of American men, women and children, answer. And, let this action of aI Arizopa .Iudoa and Arizona JurOrs be