§eifovd gnquim. BEDFORD, PA., FRIDAY, DEC. 1, 1865. it be distinctly understood that we do not deviate from our published terms. We have only the Advertised price for EDITORIAL NOTICES, special notices and advertisements. The puffing business is played out with us un ess our terms. 15 cents a line, are strictly com plied with, nor do we make any reduction on our advertising to accommodate, our best friends. There is no use for us to establish prices if we do not be governed by them, and we shall hereafter as heretofore, know no fa voritism. We hope those persons desiring to use our columns will save time by examin ing eur terras and complying with them.—tf. ADVERT IS E! ADVERTISE! The Bedford INQUIRER has the largest cir culation i* this part of Pennsylvania. It is therefore one of the- best mediums in the country for advertisers. sriflf you are a Lawyer, Doctor or other professional man, advertise. lEaTTf you want to sell goods, advertise. Set*- If you want to buy a farm, adver tise. you want to sell a farm, advertise. .fespTf you want employment, advertise. 8S&-If you waut to employ help, adver tise. BSE. If you want to buy a bouse, adver tise. B@L.lf you want to buy or sell a lot, adver tise. ffilfyou want to buy or sell cattle, adver tise. BsL.Tf.vou want to buy or sell grain, adver tise. BF%-If you want to advance your interests generally, advertisi | CHOUSE HOMICIDE CASE. [CONTINUED FROM THF. FIRST PAGE.] avement and gone on to the crossing, when Grouse went into the gutter; when they met they both looked into the face of each other; Reed went on and Crouse pulled oft iii s coat; lteed kept his back to Crouse until he got about the middle of the street then 'he went kind of sideways and watching Crouse; his face was directed toward Crouse; the ]Kst is north of the crossing; the post is bet ween the tree and the crossing; the gutter is west and north of the post; the post is inside of the curb stone; I stood in the same place until Crouse fell. J. H. Ilutton affirmed. —I live in Bedford; I was standing on my porch on the west side of Juliana street; Mr. Agnew and Harry Hohman were with me; I didn't see the par ties until Mr. Agnew said now we will have it; I looked across the street and saw Crouse take off his coat very quickly, as quickly as a man could take it off and throw it on the post, a hitching post; he stooped right down in the gutter and picked up two stones; one in each hand, after I saw him pick up the stones I looked in a southernlv direction and saw Reea standing in the middle of the street; I saw Crouse advancing upon him in this way, (giving position); Peed was retreating off in this way (giving posi tion'': his countenance was distorted and he looked as if he had been hurt; I then saw Crouse with his hand raised as if he was in the act of throwing; as he raised his hand to throw I heard the report of a pistol: the re port of the pistol and the raising of the hand were simultaneous; Crouse appeared to be very much enraged: Mr. Agnew was standing below me to the north; I didu't see any other stone thrown. Cross-Examined. —From the time I saw Reed in the middle of street to the report of the pistol it was not more than two minutes: Reed was 6 or 8 feet from the heads of the horses; the hind wheels of the carriage were not on the crossing hut near to it: Reed was standing near a pile of ashes; Reed was the length of the horses and carriage and 6 or 8 feet from Crouse; Crouse was 4 feet south of the crogsing when he fell; Crouse s feet were 8 feet or more from the east side of the cross ing and the curb when he fell: Smith s car riage was not more than 2 feet from the west curb, I think it would be 18 or 20 from the post to Crouse's feet; Reed and Grouse were 8, 10 or 12 feet apart when Crouse fell; I can point out the spots where each stood at the time Crouse fell, nearly; Crouse and Reed were moving about alike just Crouse advanc ing aud Reed retreating both walking. L. Ji. DeWolf sworn. —I am a sojourner here; was here on the first of August, present year; 1 was setting in front of the Mengel house between 9 and 10 o'clock on that day; Col. Hodgson was with me; saw Crouse going north oil the opposite side of the street; 1 saw John P. Heed, defendant coming west: he had passed Crouse about 2 or -3 yards: Reed turn ed around as if accosted by Crouse; Crouse drew off his coat and threw it on the post and picked qp two rooks: 1 saw hiin throw one and strike Reed on the side; Reed threw up both hands as though he was hurt severely; Crouse changed the other stone from the left to the right hand and advanced; nothing in John P. Reed's hands when he threw them up; C'rousc raised his hand to throwing posi tion; 1 think Crouse and Reed were now 2 or 3 yards apart; Reed now shot; I saw no J istol before that; they were 2 or 3 yards from the post at the tim< of the shot; Crouse followed about 1 \ or 2 yards from the time after the stone was thrown: Crouse followed about a yard before he threw the first stone; 1 was 50 or 80yards off all this time; Grouse's manner was violent when he attempted to throw the second time; I never saw thestor.e; i'eed passed directly afterward toward home. Cross-Examined. —My feet were against the hitching post while sitting at Mengel's; I didn't get up till they fired; my back was east and face west; I turned to the right to look down street; i heard nothing said by the par ties; 1 saw Crouse first nearly opposite the Mengel houge; ho was under my eye until he met Reed: nothing remarkable in Grouse's manner until he met Reed; Reed was near the middle of the street when 1 first saw him; 1 saw Reed when he met Crouse; Crouse und Reed were S yards apart when Crouse began to take off his coat. Col. Hodgson sworn. —I was in Bedford on the first of August; some one pointed Crouse to mc, he was passing diagonally across the street towards Palmer's offie and then went down the pavement: I kept my eye upon hiin; as he got to the comer some other gentleman passed immediately in front, of him: Reed Crouse stopped and Reed raised his hand in this way beckoning against him; Crouse followed him; Reed still pursued his way; Crouse then drew off" his coat; and pitched it on the post; Crouse im mediately picked up a stone in each hand trom the gutter; as soon as he rose he follow ed on Reed who was still retreating; Reed then I think left the crossing and was retreat ing toward his father's house; Crouse then threw a stone very violently; I both saw and heard the stone as it struck Reed; Reed gave evident indications that he was much hurt, and 1 expected to see him fall; Crouso as sumed a crouching attitude and I've been un der the impression that Crousesprang at him; at that moment I heard the report of a pistol; I had not seen a pistol iprior to that; Reed, Crouse and I were nearly ona line; I was sit tmg vofront of the Mengcl house at the time: ray face to the street. J. A. Marc hand affirmed —I live in Greens burg; on the first of August I was in Bedford setting in front of the Mengel house; I saw Reed retreating and Crouse followed hiin up; retreating from the corner at the post; while Reed was retreating Crouse was taking off his coat; he threw his coat ou the post; Crouse stepped into the gutter and picked up some thing in each hand, and then drew off at Reed in this manner (giving motion); Reed was motioning with his hand to keep back; Crouse still continued to follow him up when Reed fired; Reed I suppose was 5 or 6 feet from Crouse when Crouse picked up the stones; I can't tell howfar they were off; I saw no stone thrown: loouUn't tail how for Reed re treated; I thinkto the middle of the street. Cross-Examined. —I had only been here a few days when the occurrauce took place; my chair was leaning against the Mengel house; Heed was walking backwards looking at Crouse; Reed was walking sidewise looking rather over his left shoulder; .his right side was toward me; saw him put his coat on the post that was the first I saw.. Moll it Knee, sicom —I live at John P. Reeds,- On the first of April T lived at John Minnich's; Minnich lives nearly opposite the post; I was up at the altick window; was look ing out of the window and saw Crouse com ing down street by Xicodemus' office and Reed coming up street from Harris' corner. When Reed got up to the corner Crouse had got down to Keagy's office; the moment Crouse spied Heed he jerked his coat off and threw it on the post and stooped down in the gutter and picked up two stones, one in each hand, by that time Heed had got about one third of the way across the crossing: there was a hack coming along which slightly de layed Reed, he stepped off of the cross-walk into the street, he kind of kept his eye on Crouse: Crouse threw the stone he had in his right hand with great violence and hit Reed in the side: Reed sank down and staggered back as though he was badly hurt: Crouse was changing the stone iu his left hand to his right and had just throwed np his hand and was in the act of throwing when I saw Reed drawing out his pistol and fire. He did not take aim but made a random shot: He was still retreating as Crouse was following him up; he was about two thirds of the way across the street when he fired; he was about one half across the street when he received the blow: Crouse looked very angry. 1 didn t hear anything said between them. They were pretty good sized stones. Reed did nothing bnt fire the pistol. Cross-examined —Crouse was in a throwing position when he was shot; didn t look par ticularly where the pistol was; saw him reach into his coat pocket and pull it out; he just drew it out and put it out (giving motion) and fired; did not see the pistol until after it was fired: he had none in his hand until after he was struck: the first I s.aw of the pistol was when he was firing: Crouse sank down and staggered. Re-examined —Minnich's house is about a two story. I could see clearly what occur red. Elizabeth licighard, sworn—l live at Henry Reamers-' was going up to Mr. Reamer s store an the first of August last; was at Mr. Keagy's office; Mr. Reed was going across the street towards his father's house: Crouse was fol lowing him; he had a stone in his haiul and threw it and hit Reed in the side and Reed threw up his hands as if he had a great pain and as Crouse raised up his hand to throw an other stone Reed pulled out his pistol and fired without taking aim: Reed was about one third across the street when lie fired: it was better than half way from this: Reed was go ing back from Crouse; I saw no pistol in Beed's hand until he was hit: after he re ceived that blow he still went back; I was n bout twelve feet from the parties; Grouse's manner was angry; he was stooping like when Reed shot: he was raising up to throw. Cross-examined —I went down street behind Mr. Crouse; heard nothing said between them; saw Mr. Reed turn side ways; didn't see Mr. Crouse until he had his coat off: Reed was turned sideways when I first saw him; 1 walk ed on while the fight was going on: 1 saw Mr. Crouse fall; I was standing in Keagy's front door. DruciUa M. Shaffer sworn—l was np stairs in my mothers room on the first of August last, my mothers house is one door north of Reamer's store I was sitting in the room and I heard something goby I looked out and 1 saw a spring wagon go down street, saw J. P. Reed step off" of the edge of the pavement, I saw Crouse take off his coat and throw it on the post; lie went down to the gutter and picked up a stone in each band I think Reed was nearly two-thirds across the street, Crouse threw one of the stones and hit lleed in the left side: I could not see Reed for the window curtin of the hack ; He changed the stone from the left to the right hand and was in the act of throwing when I heard the report of a pistol; I think I was fit) feet from them Crouse seemed very angry he threw very violently; I did'lit hear any thing said between them; I saw Crouse fall 011 his face, when I next saw Reed he was on his fathers steps. Jumes Reed sworn —1 was at the door on Sat urday when my brother entered he did not say that he would blow any body through; 1 could have heard hiin if he had said it, I was walking by tiiv fathers office on the Ist of August I saw Crouse in front of J. Tate's of fice, 1 was walkingslowly, and he was walking fast, 1 was looking toward the Mengel House, when I got to the alloy Crouse got down to Keagy's office, I saw my brother there about 2 steps upon tbe cross walk; Crouse was pul ling off his coat and walked very fast and threw it oa the post; he then reached down and picked up a stone in each hand, my brother turned partly svround and motioned him away, tny brother walked on looking at Crouse: Crouse followed him to the stone crossing; He drew back his right arm and threw a stone and struck my brother in his left side, ho changed the stone from his left hand to his right and was in the act of throwing when my brother, who was walking side ways drew his pistol and fired ; when the stone hit him he threw up his hands and staggared,Crouse'a manner was very violent, there was nothing to prevent my seeing them, I did not see my brother approach Crouse at any time, when my brother fired he was right about the ash pile, Crouse continued to follow him. Meiu/el Reed sworn —l remember the Ist of August I was sitting in front of father's office door and saw Crouse go down on the oppo site side of the street I watched him until he got to the corner when I saw him meet my brother I thought he addressed him, he took off his coat and threw it on the post, my brother turned towards home then Crouse got into the gutter and took up two stones, two rocks, Crouse threw one of the stones and struck my brother ; I ran and took a stone with the intention of assisting my brother, I made no use of the stone I intended using it, when I took it, I was about 40 feet off when Crouse fell. Dr. J. L. Marbourq Re-called —I heard that Reed was injured, I went up to the jail to see him, when I came to the jail Reed was lying on the bed; I removed the clothes to ex amine the injury; Ifound that he had received a severe blow on the hip bone in front of where it joints to the back-bone; the skin was lacerated showing that it was struck by some sharp body, around that mark there was cut an alin about 2 inches in diameter extending to the spinal column: I made the examination or UO minutes after the nffrny, I attended him between two and three weeks; The wound itselfwas not dangerous; If the blow had struck the spinal column higher up it might have produced death or paralysis of the lower extremities, I think the stone exhibited, is not large enough to produce the injury, he was very lame for two or three weeks, I cup ped him to alloy the inflamation, Ifit had not relieved by the treatment it might have pro nuce'l an abscess: I saw the wound a few days ago and there is still a mark there. Rev. Heckcrman, sworn—l know defend ant and have known him for fifteen years; his character is all that could be desired. Cross-examined —Defendant's age is about 24 or 26; he has been part of his time at Lan caster and at Toronto; I think he went to Lancaster in 1869; I think he graduated in 1863; he was there a little over three years; do not know how long he was in Canada: short visits of six weeks were the only periods in which defendant was at home: 1 made it my business to inquire of the President and Fac ulty at Lancaster about his character —it was goou. X. H. Skyles, sworn —Knew Jno. P. Reed, defendant, since 1859; know his character, it is good. Cross-examined —Think he went to college in 1859. Rev. C. U. Hileman —Belong to Reformed Church; know John P. Reed: was his class mate at college; were together till 1862. Ret. Hunt, stcorn —Knew defendant since 1859; 1 left in 1860. His character is good. Judge James Burns , sworn—Knew defend ant till he went to college; his character is good. The Court then charged the Jury as fol lows: GENTLEMEN or THE JURY: This exceedingly important cause has very nearly reached the point where your delibera tions will commence. The duty of attending and listening, with patience and care, to the testimony of the witnesses and the arguments of the learned counsel for and against the de fendant, has, as far as our observation can enable as to form an Opinion, been faithfully performed: and, we doubt not, that all the facts that have been proved and all the points made in the argument are clearly and dis tinctly remembered, and that, when yon retire to deliberate upon them yon will give to each fact and each argument the consideration and attention to which it may be entitled. The duties of jurors in all cases, and espe cially in cases involving the dearest interests of life, ar.d even life itself, are always of the deepest importance, as may be implied from the manner in which you haie oven selected and for the name which the law has given you. Tou are called jurors, because the duties you are called upon to discharge, are to be per formed under the impressive and solemn sanctions of an oath, .registered not only in this court of human creation, and therefore fal lible and imperfect, but also in the court of Heaven, where Justice has her throne and where all men are judged, and all cases adju dicated according to the principles of uner ring truth. While we cannot hope ta reach the same exalted perfection that marks the decisions of the Great Tribunal, we are re quired to approximate, as nearly as is possi ble for frail humanity. In the light of this great responsibility we appreach the perform ance of the duty devolved upon us, and we be lieve you will be influenced by the same sol emn considerations in the performance of yours. The defendant in this case stands charged, by the grand inquest of the commonwealth, with the highest crime, save one, that is known to the law—the crime of wilful, deliberate and premeditated murder. Next to the crime of treason, which aims at the life of the na tion, the murder of a fellow being is regard ed by all laws, human, and divine, as the most atrocious and diabolical. The investi gation of a charge of such magnitude and fearful consequences demands at the hands of the court and jury the utmost caution aud prudence, and in order that you may fully comprehend its nature, it is made the duty of the court to set plainly before you all the rules of law that have any bearing upon it; which duty, to the best of our ability, we now pro ceed to discharge. By the common law, which is part of the law of this state, murder is defined to be "where a man of sound memory and discre tion unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being, in the peace of the commonwealth, with malice, prepense or aforethought either express or implied." The act of 1794, re-en acted in 18(10 and made part of the new crim inal code, declares that "all murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of wil ful, deliberate and premeditated killing, or which shall he committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any arson, rape, rob bery or burglary, shall he deemed murder in the first degree, and all other kinds of mar der-shall be deemed murder in the second degree." The history of criminal jurispru. deuce has shown that, even in cases of mur der, there is great diversity in the degrees of guilt, and that there should be soma distinc tion in the punishment. Hence this statute dividing murder into two degrees. The indictment charges the defendant with murder in the first degree. What is neoessa ry to constitute this offence? Besides malice, which must always be found to exist in each degree of murder, there must be, to make mur der in the first degree, a specific intent to take life; there must be a wilful, deliberate and premeditated killing. In other words: the slayer must have desired and intended the death of his victim; there must be coolness and deliberation in the purpose, and it must have been premeditated, reflected apou and turned over in the mind beforehand. When death is produced by means of poison, or by lying in wait, the law presumes the intention to take life, the deliberation and premedita tion; but when it is caused by others means, the evidence of these elements of the offence must be as clear and forcible as that arising from the use ofpoison. This question ofintentmust be determined from all the attending circum stances, the previous threats and declarations of the accused and the character of the weap on employed. To shoot a man through the head with a musket or pistol ball, to stab him in a vital part with a sword or dagger, to cleave his scull with an axe, and the like, are such manifestations of a purpose to take life, as it must be next to impossible to disregard. In respect to the premeditation required by the law, it has been held, that it may be ex hibited in a minute before the killing, as well as in a year—but there must be clear evidence of premeditation. In a case where malice still exists, but the evidence fails to fix oa the mind that the kil ling was wilful, and premeditated; or where the intdrn? CM only to do great bodb ly harm or other serious mischief; or where death ensues from the commission of some crime, inferior in turpitude to those mention ed in the statute, or of any unlawful act, or from the use of a deadly weapon, such killing will only amount to murder in the second de gree. At this point, it is proper we should direct your atttention to what the law means by the term malice, in its connection with the crime of murder. The literal meaning of the word malice is wickedness, ill will, a disposition to injure without a cause. Hut the law assigns to it a moreextensive signification, as including, not merely special ill will to the party slain, but a generally wicked, depraved and malignant spirit, springing from a heait regardless of social duty, and fiitally bent on mischief. This is malice as defined by the law; and is either express or implied. "Where one person kills another with a sedate, deliberate mind, and formed design, it is said to be express." It may be proved directly, by evidence of the declarations of the party, that he would kill the deceased, have revenge upon him, or the like expressions. It is, however, more fre quently established by circumstances, such as antecedent grudges, previous quarrels, con certed schemes to injure the adversary, and by any deliberate and cruel act committed by one person against another. Malice is im plied when the facts and circumstances con nected with the killing show there was no provocation, and that the act was committed from a depraved inclination to mischief; or it may be inferred from the use of SMI instrument likely to kill. Malice, as we have thus described it, is an indispensable element in the crime of mur der, whether of the first or second degree; and before you can find the defendant guilty of either grade of murder, the existence of this element must be established. We state this general principle without taking time to present to you all the phases in which it may be found to exhibit itself. From what we have already said, and what has been said during the discussions of the learned counsel, we believe you fully comprehend the nature of malice as we have defined it, and will he able to apply it to the facts. There is, however, another species of felo nious homicide, to which it is our duty now to advert. The law calls it manslaughter, and this is defined to be the unlawful and feloni ous killing of another without any malice, either express or implied. It differs from murder in not requiring the presence of mal ice. The common and most readily compre hended illustration of this offence is this : where two men fight upon a sudden quarrel, and one of them kills the other in the heat of blood. Another illustration is, where a man has been greatly provoked by any gross in dignity and immediately, in the heat of blood kills the aggressor. But in order to reduce a homicide, produced by a deadly weapon, to the grade of manslaughter, there must have been a reasouable provocation—not a. slight or trivial one. When such provocation is shown, the law will then, in merciful indulgence to the frailty of human nature, refuse to class this kind of killing with that which results from cool, deliberation and premeditation. We have thus, as concisely as possible, set before yon these three different grades of horn, icide, and the rules of law in relation to them as far as we think necessary for the purposes of this case, that you may apply them to the facts detailed in evidence before you, and de termine to which class, if to either, the kill ing in this case belongs; provided you would come to the conclusion that the defence set up has not been sustained. And this brings us to the consideration of the rules of law ap plicable to the doctrine of self defence. Self defence is an instinct of our common humanity, and has found expression in the universal and trite inaxim that "self preser vation is the first law of Mature." It is in deed, a sacred right, recognized by the law of the land, and enforced in every civilized state. But when one man kills another on the plea of self defence, lie must satisfy the minds of the jury that this was the only resort, or that he had reasonable ground to believe that this was the only means, by which he could preserve his own life, or protect his person from great bodily harm. It is a well settled rule in England, from which we have drawn the most valuable principles of our law on this subject, as well as of the Courts of this State, and indeed of all christian and civilized States, that before a man can appeal to this extreme measure of protection, he must give way and retreat as far as such retreat can be made with safety, or until he reaches a wall, ditch or other obstruction that renders further retreat im possible. There is but one exception to this great christian rule, and that is, when the as sault is so sudden, violent and fierce that the attempt to retreat would only increase the danger of the loss of life, or of great bodily harm. Tn such ease the party assailed may defend himself in his tracks, and only then. If the law allowed any other rule than this, it is easy to see that in many cases the life the citizen must be Beriously endangered. This question of self defence is the great point in this case. The killing of Jacob Crouse with a deadly weapon is not denied. It not only is not denied, but is admitted and justified, on the ground that the assault upon the defendant by the deceased was mad* with so mnch suddenness, violence and fierce ness, that there was no means of escape, with his life, or without great bodily harm, except by shooting at. and taking the life of his op , ponent. The parties met on the corner at Mann's store room, on the morning of the first of Au gust last, neither party having seen the other until they encountered each other face to face. Some words passed between them that no one heard, and the import of which, we are left to conjecture. Had they been heard and com municated to us, much of the mystery that surrounds this part of the case might have been dispelled. The deceased (Grouse) was heard to address the defendant with the words "Mr. Heed," and this is all we know of what was said on that fatal occasion. Crouse was then seen to take off his coat and hang it up on the post, and immediately after to pick up stoues, the defendant moving off, and motion ing with his hand to the deceased. Just at this point arises a disputed question of fact of very great consequence in the cause. It is this: On the one side it is alleged that the pis tol was drawn by the defendant, within the view of the deceased, and before he picked up the stones: and on the other side that the stones were picked up, and one of them thrown against the person of the defendant with great violence, and causing a severe in jury, before he drew the pistol. The witnes* produced by the commonwealth to this particular point is Mr. Alex. Agnew, who swears that he saw the parties when they met, —that he heard the deceased say l< Mr. Reed"—that he saw Crouse pull off his coat and hang it on the post—that he then looked at the defendant and saw tbemuzzle of a pis tol, which he had in his right hand, projecting an inch or an inch and a half past the breast of his coat; —that Crouse then stooped and picked up a stone in each hand. No other witness either for the commonwealth or for the defendant saw this—lt does not follow, however, that the statement of Mr. Alex. Agnew is false—much less dees it follow that it is willfully false—and the charge ought not to have been made. Whether he was mistaken ornotisforthejury to determine —we express no opinion in respect to it. —Ilickok, Lyon, Ilutton, De wolf, Col. Hudson, and Harry Hohman say they saw the defendant, when he was struck with the stone, lift up both hands and they saw no pis tol in either. —None of the witnesses last named saw the pistol until it was fired by defendant and most of them, if we remem ber aright,only kuew of there being a pistol at all by hearing thereportand seeingtheeffectof it upon the deceased. There were three other witnesses, Miss Reigart. Miss Molly Knee and James Heed, a brother of the defendant, saw the pistol, and they sayit was produced foe the first time when it w* fired. Tfris whole trans action transpired within a very brfefspace of time and it is but natural that different parties would give different versions of it—lt is argu ed that the conduct of Crouse in watching the defendant is evidence thatthere was some special reason for it, and this is a circum stance that you will consider. We do not pro ' pose to discuss these facts —this lids been done by the counsel. That the defendant had a pis tol is notdisputed. When was it drawn by him? This question you must settle—lf it was drawn before the stones were picked up by the de ceased. and that was his reason for arming himself with them, this fact of itself puts an end to the plea of self defence —But if you come to the conclusion, from the evidence, thatthe pistol was not drawn before thestones were picked upandone of them thrownagainst the person of the defendant, therestillremains for your decision the great question ef self defence. No man is excused, as we have al readysaid, in taking human lit* *.ti self de fence, until he has shown >ffas absolutely necessary, or that he hntd reasonable grounds to believe it to be necessary, in order to save his own life or protect himself from great bodily haxnv. You cannot have forgotten the testimony applicable to this point. We pro pose the following questions to which you can apply the evidence: Could the defendant have retreated before he was struck with a stone? Could he have retreated afterwards.with safe ty? Where did he stand when he fired the pis tol? Flow far was he from Crouse? If he could not have retreated without exposing his life to increased danger or his person to greater peril of bodily harm, his plea of self defence would be sustained; if he couldhave so retreated, there is then no excuse for taking the life of Crouse and his defenco fails—and it will then become your duty to determine the grade of the defendant's guilt. If there was a specific intent to take life, and the defendant armed himself with a pis tol for the purpose of using it, even in case of a quarrel commenced by the deceased, the of fence would be murder in the first degree. If there was no specific intent to take life, but you find that there was malice, as we have al ready iustructed you, it wouldbemurderin the second degree. But if there was no malice, and the killing was the result of the provocation given by throwing the stone and striking, the defendant, who in the heat of blood and trans port of passion fired the pistol* tbe offence would be manslaughter. The defendant's counsel have submitted the following points, the answer to which will contain the additional instructions it may be necessary for the court to give to you. 1. That if John P.Reed, without any attack or assault on Jacob Crouse, on the first of August 1865, was assailed by Jacob Crouse, and pursued by him, wounded by him, and was subject by an attempt again to be wounded, or to encounter great bodily harm, and the danger was imminent and immediate, he had the right in self defence to take the life of the assailant. 2. That, if even previous threats had "been mutually resorted to, and the parties sudden ly met, and the same occurrences took place, just refered to, Johr. P. Reed was entitled to be considered in self defence. 3. That when a party assailed, violently and with a dangerous weapon, without the a hility to escape from the impending peril, shall take the life of his assailant, it is homi cide in self defence. 4. That even if Reed had commenced the assault, which is not pretended, and after wards retreated, and was pursued by Crouse, in the manner detailed by the witnesses, he had a right to slay the pursurer in pio tection of his own life and limbs. 5. That wen the assault of Crouse, with these stones, each of which might have prov ed fatal, and from neither of which Reed had the opportunity to escape, without subjecting himself to the probability of death or enoi mous bodily harm, he had the right tu ttt'te i the life of his assailant to preserve his own. i 6. That in this case, direct injury has been proved, a repeated injury was threatened and Reed was not bound to await the result, in sufferings which he previonsly sustained, which result might probably have proved fa tal. 7. That if the jury have apy doubt in regard to the act being an act in self defence, they are bound to acquit hirn. That when the jury disa gree. the very disagreement implies doubt, and should lead to an acquittal. 8. In case of reasonable donbt as to the guilt of the accused, evidence of previous good character is conclusive in his favor. 9. And character is always to be taken in to the consideration of the jury as a fact, in making up the verdict. 1. To this point we say that if the jury be lieve thai the assault was commenced by the deceased with such suddenness, violence and fierceness, and that it was of such a charac ter as threatened the life of the defendant or great bodily harm to his person, and left him no chance of retreat, or any other means of escape, he would be excused in takiug the life of his adversary. 2. In the second point we say the mutual threats indulged in by both parties will not vary the circumstances attending the occur rence on the day of the shooting, or affect the defendant's right of self defence. Threats made by defendant might have something to do with the nse of a deadly weapon, or explanation of the purpose for which he carried it. Threats made by the deceased are entitled to consideration on the defendant's apprehension of danger from the assault of his opponent; still, if he had the opportunity to retreat and did not avail himself of it, he is not excused for killing the deceased. 3 and 5. We answer the third and fifth points by saying that the positions assumed are but a repetition in another form, of the opin ions we have already expressed as to the right of self defence. 4. To the fourth point we answer that it is too indefinite to be submitted to the jry as a legal proposition. We have already said that if the pistol was drawn before the stones were picked up and thrown by the deceased, the plea of self defence could not be sustained. Whether the pursuit of the defendant by Crouse afterwards was conducted in a manner that authorized the killing of the latter for the protection of the life of the accused, is a question to be settled by the jury from the evidence, according to the instructions we have already given. 6. If the facts assumed in this point are found by the jury, aud they believe, in addi tion thereto, that the defendant could not Otherwise have avoided the threatened mis j chief, he was not bound to await the second assault. 7. We cannot instruct the jury as desired on this point. Where one man kills another by the use of a deadly weapon, the law infers malice; and in order to extenuate the offence and reduce it to manslaughter, or homicide in self defence, it is incumbent on the accused to prove to the satisfaction of the jury the existence of the extenuating facts and cir- cunistances. The next proposition in this point has no support that we know of except a theory of Judge Wilson as contained in one of hia lec tures. He was a very distinguished lawyer but this doctrine of his has never been recog nizedassound law by anycourtin any country. 8. This point we affirm. 9. On the subject referred to in this point we adopt the language of the court of oyer and terminer in the case the commonwealth vs. Kilpatrick (7 Casey 200) and read it as part of our charge. "The evidence proves the defendant to have borne an excellent reputation. Originally, evidence of good character was not allowed to go to the jury, when there was positive proof of the commission of an offence; for if one was seen to commit a murder with delib eration, although he had borne an irreproach able character, he must yet be guilty. The rule of law in this state, however, permits ev idence of good character to be submitted to the jury in every case of homicide, no matter what may be the other testimony in the case. But when a doubt suggests itself to your minds, as to the prisoner's guilt, upon the facts of the case, as presented by the evidence the law casts the whole weight of the prison er's good character in mercy's scale, and set tles the question in favor of the accused.— What then is a doubt? It is not sufficient for the prosecutur to establish a probability, the evidence must establish the truth, not a reas onable certainty; it must convince and direct the understanding, and satisfV the reason-and judgment of those who are bound to act con sistently A doubt, such as the law recognizes, is not a figment of the imagina tion, but something, which, upon a candid and conscientious examination of the evi dence in the ease, must lead a man of com mon sense, if he were dealing with the ordi nary business of life, and in his own affairs, seriously to pause before coming to a conclu sion. If such a doubt exists in this case the prisoner is entitled to the benefit of it. We have thus endeavored to lay before you the principles of law applicable to this impor tant cause, which, it is your duty to take from the court: and the more especially, as the de fendant has the right to except to any decis ion we may pronounce, and have the same reviewed by the Supreme Court. We conclude this charge with a single word of admonition. It is not to be concealed that the fatal affair we are now investigating, has, in some measure, grown out of the great rebellion that so recently threatened the sub version of the government. Differences of opinion have divided men and arrayed them on opposite sides of the controversy, aud few, if any, have been exempt from the ex citements of the day; and we risk but little in saying that the influences of these excite ments are still operating on the minds of partisans. As far as it has been in our power we have striven to rise above any sentiments and sympathies of our own, and w>, there tore, take leave to impress upon yoar minds the duty of laying aside any leehogs or pre judices that you may possibly entertain, and giving to this case the most calm and impar tial consideration. In this sacred temple of law, as one of the distinguished counsel of the defendant has styled it, the scales of Jus tice should he held in even balance, an<\ y, R ministers at her altar must perform their du ties in a man see that will secure to them, in all the future the approval of conscience. The case is with you. The Jury then retired to their routu anu after an absence of about an hour and a half returned with a verdH of— N<>T QVILTV. THE JUBV COMMISSI*) MBS.- I The gen tlemen elected at the October election to the position of Jury Commissioners for this County met last week and determined upon the 18th of December, proximo, as the time to draw the Jury foT the February term. Fr< n: henceforth thanks be to the Legisla ture of Pennsylvania, we will have jurors that will not consist solely of the most rabid and bigoted Copperheads' in the County. We will have no more such jurors as were summoned for the Reed-Crouse case —fifty- two Copper heads and eight Republicans. That day, thank heaven, has gone by, no more Copperhead justice for us, had quite enough of it, an experience of ten years is quite sufficient. In Mr. il l'lam Kirk we have an excellent Com missioner one whose honesty is above re proach and who will see that the jury box will not be tampered with in the future. BOUNTY TAX. —We have heard great complaint on the part of the soldiers in re gard to the payment of this tax. We would call the attention of persons interested to the following provision in sec. 4, of the act "Relating to the payment of Bounties to volunteers" approved 25th day of March, A. D. 1*64 : "Provided, That the property of non commissioned of officers and privates, in actual service in the United States army and navy froiu this commonwealth or who died, or were permantly disabled in such ser vice or having been in such service for the term of one year and six months, were hon orably discharged therefrom and the prop erty of widows minor children and widowed mothers of non-com missioned officers and privates who died in such service shall be exempted from any taxation under the pro. visions of this act." THE ELECTION OF PATRICK DONAHOE CONTESTED. —At the late Session of the Court of Quarter Sessions of Bedford coun ty a petition was offered to the court setting fourth that Patrick Donahoe was elected to the County Surveyorship by illegal votes and asking the Court to appoint the time for hearing the case. The Court appointed the 2Gth day of February next. Mr. Sams is the contestant and we feel satisfied will make a clear case. If he should be successful and we feel pretty confident that he will be, a contest will be commenced against all the persons declared elected over their Repub lican opponents at the late election in this county. The Copperlieadshave had their day of fraud and rascality henceforth we shall see that they come strictly within the provisions of the law. The iokes related by our friend Ma jor Williamson of Huntingdon at the Re publican meeting on Tuesday night of Court week were not appreciated by our sore friend of the Gazette, judging from his sar castic notice of toe Major's speech. Our cotemporary being afflicted with a sore head he is only verifying the maxim "as cross as a bear with a sore head.' The COPPER- I eads are now sbrely all eoRE -heads, and ncne more so than the editor of the Gazette. We expect the Major to have a special joke on hand for this morose gentleman on the occasion of his next visit. late change of schedule on the Broad Top Railroad is calculated to prove very annoying to the citizens of Morrison's Cove. All niail matter mailed at this place for any place enroute No. 2569 after twelve o'clock M. on Thursday cannot possibly reach its destination until the afternoon of the Monday following. This accounts for the non-arrival of our papers. They are mailed here on Thursday evening and the train on the Broad Top road does not go down in time to make the connection at Hopewelll and all the papers lie over until the next mail which does not go up again until Monday. We hope, however; to have a daily mail on that route erelong. Let the day be hastened, the people have endured the inconveniences of a tri-weekly mail quite long enough. THE Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, (D. V.) will be administered in the Presby terian Church on next Sabbath. The Rev. D. H. Barron, of Hollidaysburg, Pa., will assist the pastor. FESTIVAL OF THE BENEFIT OF THE CEMK TARY ASSOCIATION. —A meeting of ladies and gentlemen, interested in the proposed festival will bo held at the Court House, on next Monday evening 4th December, at 6 J o'clock—a full attcndence is requested. CHRISTMAS IS Comso.—lf you wish to delight your friend with a Christmas Present or New Year's Gift send him a copy of the "Photograph Family Record." There is no better way. ARTHUR'S HOME MAGAZINE FOR DECEMBER greets us properly at the opening of the month. One year ago the publishers promised an increase of size and many improvements in the Home Magazine, and they have kept their word. Steadily, in competition with other peri odicals, long favorites with the people, the Home Magazine has year after year put forth its claims to favor, asking acceptance only on the ground of merit, and year after year it has widened its circulation and deepened its hold on the popular heart, until it has become established on a broad and sure foun dation; not as a fashion magazine—not as appealing to light and superficial tastes, but as a cheerful friend and thoughtful counsel lor to young and old. Month after month, the editors have filled, its pages with things pleasant and profitable, and made its visits welcome for the truth and beauty and human sympathy it bore into the thousands of homes it was destined to enter. The Ho*" Magaziue is not simply a literary pc It takes higher ground' and se r ' literature the handmaid of That* Of story, poem, ' f ***** < 'Uolden Ru' ' , that only by the good puw " ?* umn i,ve to any wise or •- f _ -pttfiC- ti yon open your door to its 'I be a true friend in your hocne-- j nold. You will find it neither didactic u o r | heavy, but cheeiful, animated social— [ a friend, dropping hi upon quiet hours, with something always pfoamut and profitable to say. The terms are *>, so a year 3 copies ft* * . lh\e toping and one to getter up of T. g, Arthur 323 walnut bi Philadeluhia.
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers