a. In 17 0: rs 1 v ' t t' tb be at Tt- S i f! ei4 v ill ill ft i "1 Ft 9 ; -M c4 i Kfopp nilTClIIIVgOiy, Publisher, . OLUMIS 7 . I WOULD BATHER BE BIGHT THAN. PRESIDENT: Hmbt Clay. EBENSBUftG, PA., THURSDAY, JANUARY J. 1800. : : ! 7 TSRilS:3'00 pER AMSUM, ' ' .QO IN ADVANCE. NUMBER 13: 7HE GORE HOMICIDE CASE. a Al. . w . a Qore ana tuunci uoninion i ...So . ec. Term, isro. tit Cowt of Oyer and Terminer of Cambria Countyuon. uto. Taylor, Jr. J. CHARGE OF THE COURT. The trisDner at the bar. John Gore. ho is indicted with Charles Robinson for . murder of Edward Holmes, on ar gument demanded, as he had a right do, a separate trial : and you have been . : ..i ; l 1- - torn to try me issue juiueu, uu iubk.c ae deliverance between him and the mmonwealth, according to the evidence. 0 fa if renmres tit the hands of this 1 Y;t, and of you, gentlemen, the dis- ge of the moit solemn and responsible 7 ever fe issue i to the prisoner, and to the public lehigh obligations under which we act, lODiy oe discharged by a hrm perform x ot our respective duties, in the ex- t 1 A. 1 J 111 1 ::-e 01 our uesi judgment, wuaout ai- I L 3 1 mug ourselves to qo swervea oy preju- ce oa the one hand, or sympathy on tte fter; and without regard to consequences, f which we will then not be respon se, and over which we have no control. a must take tor our guidance the law cast upon a court and iurv. is of momentous importance. it is, and the evidence in tne cause, chout undertaking to make or mould, it is not our province to do, the one or a other, to our own views, or prejudices, sympathies, it is our outy to state to i the law, and to indicate the questions your decision, which arise on its ap- Mtion. it is your duty to apply the ( as you receive it from the court, to facts iu evidence, as you have received ;ifrom the witnesses, and so make up :t-eraiet. we proceed, then, to cum- :it case to yov. 'larder is the unlawful killing of any ziu beine, with malice aforethought. T!ss or implied. Kalice, which is an essential element, k distinguishing ingredient in murder, u legal sense, as distinguished from poDular sense of the word, doe3 not a soito or malevolence aeainst the o Jsed iu particular, but that the fact oeen attended with such circumstances re the ordinary symptoms of a wicked, rtved, and malignant spirit ; a heart irdleis of social duty, and fatally bent n mischief. It :s wickedness of heart, oipting to tho commission of cruel and iiful acts, in view, and regardless, of consequences. It is either express or malice is when the killing is J.iri it unrt-iiue, ucnoerate mina, ana iorm- sign, manifested by external circum pes, such as previous threats or men p,v former qrucges, and concerted pises to do the nartv bodilv harm malice means, that the been attended with such circum- acw as carry with them the plain in- fJUUnH oi a WICKPd nnrt mi Airn n fit. The law imnlies mHff in owrv tiibetaie, cruel act committed by one "ou i?ainst another, however sudden. ii uniawim killing, especially with a Fy weapon, is, therefore, murder, un ?it be fihovn to be a less offence. is murder at common law ; and ' murder la Pennsylvania. Our "J law has not added any new ingre- nS Ottttrn"tahed anv new dpfinit.Jnn. of f cniae What was murder at common F still murder. But. our statute law. aa purpose of more int r,u,tiahmant nguishes between a.ffof r 'Clous hcmicide. and ,V,t.; murder ot tha fir,t j j r.t. aceofrt? ttl deWin the lan- ed in the A;;"vi Are- Vrt . Vl lQe l8t March dfclibenitA 7 l J , JCIDd of wl- rauon nr """-u m tno per- roo.ran,, ,u r Frpeirate, any T . 1 been, that , whenever there plainly appears to have been a formed design, or specific intent, however suddenly formed, to take life, it is murder of the first degree, When such design, or intent to kill, is not shewn beyond a reasonable doubt, or when there is a reasonable doubt whether the murderer, at the time the mortal wound was inflicted, intended anything more than to do great bodily harm, it is murder in the second degree. A homi cide may be, and frequently b, murder, when there ia no intent to kill. If done with malice it is murder. To determine whether the crime is murder, the question is, was: it malicious?.; To determine whether a homicide with malice, which ia murder, in a case like this, is a murder of the first or second degree, is a question of intention ; and, the test-inquiry is, did the prisoner, at the time, deliberately aim at life and intend to kill? A response to this inquiry mast be given by the jury, from all the evidence. Such deliberation and design may be shewn, and it is for the Commonwealth always to make it out beyond a reasonable doubt, by express evidence of such de sign, or by conduct and circumstances which necessarily imply it. It may be an inevitable inference from the weapon used, and the manner of its use. ' If. for exam ple, one deliberately aim and discharge a loaded pistol at the head or breast of an other; or if, with deliberate aim, he cleave the skull with an axe, it could not, ordinarily, admit of a moment's doubt, that he intended to kill; for such would be the natural, if not the almost certain result; and every one, in the exercise of his natural faculties, it is reasonable to conclude, contemplates the u.ual result of his acts. The design may also be proven by other evidence ; such as the deliberate preparation of a deadly weapon, specific threats, and the like. And, if the party had time to deliberate and form such de sign, though but tor a minute, and (ilQ P or lezal ins of in Other!..-J . i ma r fr t . . - ier ; fr; "l er shall be deemed any ree; and the jury person indicted for K.. Z - i r -u between the two desrees nf Tf ia nnf . "Will he lreA ;r , a Person .: ,' ' " incJ nna ore(nKJ'rk",;.,.,, oe ttUraer of the -.vu ucgree." kU uuij ui iurv. 'oiaato Mr :. .. : veraic 11 u not dif&. hi' "cognize the murders ot Emitted i Ti.J in3 tn waU Uleu in the nurnnt...:.. -c SpreH r&1ry. These iLT'J declared to be tmtA in 'iT'- .But more difficulty has o eterminmo' wWi. r ' is ; i j v yvwet a particular lZ Sd?de II the description, mJw,aJ rul, deliberate, and xJr"? Thb Pt"aeology to tWDS-aeSree of deliberation "dicated in the defined r,ruer perpetrated bv mean nf 3 n" . "V S sol ' rJrwd bJ Chief Justice judicial construction ha so, it is a wilful, deliberate, and premedita- lea muing, ana muraer ot tne Urst degree. This has been the uniform construction of the statute; and, with the report of . L - . - ., . iue commissioners to revise tne penal code before them, that "no attempt had been made to interfere with the law of murder as it had existed since the act of 1794, C aI 1 1 i . 1 iit iue reasoa mat it naa Deen " so thoroughly considered, and its construc tion and its meaning so entirely settled by a long course of judicial decision " the Legislature, in 1860, adopted, without the change ot a word, the old statute. A homicide, indicted as murder, may oe reaucca to manslaughter, by evidence which rebuts the legal presumption of mance ; or to no oaence at all. by evi- aence snowing it to be justifiable or ex cusable. Manslaughter is the unlawful kill. another without malice. This ia the distinction between murder and man slaughter: the one is an unlawful killing with, and the other without malice. The latter is a killing which usually happens in a sudden heat and quarrel, and uron a sudden provocation. The law, from ten derness to human infirmity, considers a homicide committed ic passion, and upon what it judges sufficient provocation, as committed without malice, andtherefore only manslaughter. Passion, without sufficient provocation at the time inciting it, is not sufficient. Passion, without pro vocation, is malice. And provocation, such as will avail for the purpose, has a defined legal signification. No breach of a man's word, no trespass to his lands or goods, no insult by words, no matter how provoking or insulting tbey may be, will free a party killing from the guilt of mur der. And this is especially true where the party killing upon such provocation, makes use of a deadly weapon. This is the law of homicide, so far as it is necessary to state it, at least at present, in this case; and wo now turn to the evi dence to which the law is to be applied.' Introductory to the statement of the questions to be determmea in this . case, we recur to tne general tacts in evidence immediately connected with the death of Edward Holmes, which is averred in the indictment as having- been- maliciously caused by the prisoner and Charles Rob inson, jointly indicted with him. In this brief general summary, your recollection will supply omissions of details in the ev- dence calculated to throw any light upon the whole transaction, and the questions arising in the case. It seems from the evidence, that about the 29th of August, or a , day or two be foro the shooting of the deceased, a war rant was issued by Justice McKee against the prisoner and others on the informa tion of William Palmer, Esq., for larceny. It was directed to Constable Davis, but was put into the hands of R. P. Linton, also a constable, who made an unsuccessful attempt to execute it, the prisoner eluding him and effecting his escape. He then, as he testifies, gave the warrant to Edward Holmes (the deceased) and Joseph Oster, polisemen of the borough of. Johnstown, and who, he says, agreed to execute it. He does not remember to which of them lie gave it they were together at the time but he says he saw Holmes have it the next morning, the day of the fatal occur rence. : i On that day, the 30th, about, 8 or 9 o'clock, according to the testimony of Henry Chambers, John Grore,' the priso ner, Charles RctSnson, and. another,. en tered his shop to get shaved ; and while there, Holmes, the deceased, entered, and attempted to arrest Gore, "He' walked up to him, put his hand upon him as Chambers testifies, "and with that Robin son struck him two or three times, and iu the scuffle Gore got awy." . The parties got out on the pavement, where the priso ner attempted to strike Holmes, and felL Holmes then, io defence, drew a pistol, when his assailant desisted, and he soon afterwards left. Holmes, - it appears, went . and made complaint against Robinson to William Orr, the Burgess, who, as he testifies, is sued a warrant against Robinson for re sisting Holmes in the discharge of his duty aa an officer; and about 11 o'clock, ho further testifies he met Holmes and Oster on the street, going, as they said, to arrest Gore and Robinson, and he told them' they were at Fend's saloon. ' Gore and Robinson had, in the meantime, as the evidence shows, after the transaction at the barber's shop, gone to Patton's shop and provided themselves with ' clubs, ut tering threats against Holmes, and after wards to Mr7 Swank's "hardware stored where Gore purchased a revolver, and there loaded two of the barrels himself, and got Mr. Swank to load the others.. : They proceeded: very soon afterwards, as it would seem, to Fend's cellar. There is some discrepancy, as might reasonably be expected: in the testimony of the wit nesses, detailing what there occurred, at the time of the shooting. You will re concile the statements of the witnesses, if you can, and from all the evidence upon this part ot the case, ascertain if you can the true facts of the transaction. Gore and Robinson had gone in, and were eat ing oysters when the policemen entered. Holmes, according to all the witnesses, approached Robinson to arrest him, or to arrest both, -as it was differently under stood, and differently stated, by the wit nesses. Violent opposition to "being ar rested .was manifested, particularly by Robinson, who was soon observed to be in a scuffle or conflict with Holmes, in which Gore approached and. participated. Very soon afterwards, .tfore, the prisoner, was seen to step back four to six feet, and point a pistol at the breast of Holmes, and nre. Holmes bent or stooped down, or staggered, struck the stove, knocking it down, passed up the steps, and through the entry to the back part of Fend's pre mises, where Dr. Lowman, when called, found him. He lingered till the 22d of oeptember, when he died. The first general inquiry in the cause, is, was the death of Holmes caused by tho shot fired . by this prisoner ? This question- ot tact, which is here contro verted, lies at the very foundation of the case. It is met at the very threshold of inquiry, and mu3t be determined at the very outset. It the death was not. and is not plainly shown to have been, the re sult ot the shot, there was no homicide : the body of the crime has not been pro ven ; and uoDody can be convicted. , And it is for the Commonwealth to prove this material fact beyond a reasonable doubt; xi it nas Deen so proven, tne remaining general inquiry is, what is the prisoner s crime l . . Was the death pf Holmes the result or consequence of the wound inflicted by the prisoner? Dr. Lowman, who was called to see Holmes immediately after he was shot, attended him during his illness, and who made the post-mortem examination of the body, expresse3 the belief that it was ; and Dr. Sheridan, who witnessed the ex amination, is of the same opinion. He noticed the facts in the condition of the body, mentioned by Dr. Lowman, and upon which he based his opinion, and states that it was his belief at the time, and still is, that they were results of tbe wound, and, together, the cause ot death. On the part of the prisoner, Dr. Hart- well and Dr. A. Ycagfey, were called and examined, expressing opinions on some questions: in the science of medicine or surgery somewhat at variance with the expressed opinions of tbe professional witnesses of the Commonwealth ; but it is oDservaDie that: neitner ot tnem nas ventured to express the opinion that the death did result from any other cause than the conditions proven by Dr. Low- man and Dr. Sheridan to exist, and which is traced by them to: the pistol shot. Neither of them saw tho body examined. The question is not, what might,' possibly, have occasioned the death, but what did do it. Dr. Yeagley also testifies, or re marks, in calling your attention to the whole evidence on this subject, that with in some short space of time, he had treat ed the deceased for syphilis, and that shortly before his death he had intermit tent fever. Dr.' Lowman, however, states that : on his examination of the body, he found no evidence of secondary syphilis, and that the diseased condition of the or gans found to exist, and which together caused. .the death, could not have been producedby a recent attack of fever and ague. : ; - - '. ' "'"' ; . But, we will not , elaborate this point. We merely call your attention to the promi nent factS jin" evidence bearing upon it. The deceased, up' to the time' he; was wounded, . had . been in - apparently good health .moving about attending t to : his business. ',' Dr. .'Lowman J a . few. minutes afterwards : found : him - with a. wound on ' TIMI u the breast where the ball had entered, w.uvui. o.ujr puiae m me wrist, Dallied in cold perspiration, breathing with much difficulty, and apparently dying, a result which would usually and:naturally be ex pected to follow such a wound in that part' of the body. He - rallied a little shortly' afterwards, and the doctor ordered him to be taken to his house, where he visited him every day,' except one, genera ally twice a day, until his death. At first he vomited' blood, which led to the con clusion that the stomach had been pene trated; but the course of the ball, and the work it had done, could only be judg ed of by symptoms. As death did not soon follow, hope was entertained by his friends, and even oy his physician, that he might recover ; bat the symptoms af terwards became more and more unfavor able, aod he lingered in a low and weak state, until the 22nd of September,' when he died, -about three weeks' after receiv ing the wound. It was disclosed upon an examination of the body a : few-hours after death,' that the ball had entered the epigastric region about an inch to the left of the centre line, and opposite the 7th rib, had touched without penetrating part of the stomach, which was found to be in a highly inflamed state, part of it gan grenous, touched the spleen which was found to bo very large aud softened, and passed through the left lobe of the liver. A quantity of coagulated or disorganized blood was found in the abdominal cavity, and a large abscess in the liver, where the ball had passed through, containing from 8 to 10 fluid ounces of pus. No further search, in its course, was made for the ball, which had lodged in the body, as it was judged unnecessary,; and were dan .gerous, to do so. These were results, such as might reasonably be expected to follow such a : wound in that vital region ; and were sufficient, in the opinion of the phy sicians who made and witnessed the ex amination, to cause death ; while, it was also disclosed that he had evidently been a man in pretty good health, and no other cause of death could be discovered. The conclusion of Dr. Lowman and Dr. Sheri dan, therefore, was, that it had been caused by the wound ; and what other conclusion could they have formed ? But you,' gen tlemen, will determine this question - for yourselves..: J.1 you have a reasonable doubt upon this question, the prisoner is entitled to the benefit of it. If you have not, the remaining inquiry is, what is his crimo i If it is made clear that the deceased was killed by the prisoner, it is not claim ed that it was, or could be, a justifiable 1 - . J Tl - . uoimciue. was, in any view oi it, an unlawful killing, and, in legal presump tion, murder, unless there is something disclosed, and to be found in tbe evidence. to reout tne presumption ot malice. Be sides, there is evidence tendiug strongly to show, and which, it is agreed on the part of the Commonwealth, does show, express malice. . And thete are but two aspects of the case in - which the killing might be only manslaughter. The prisoner's counsel, in the point submitted, assuming that Holmes was at tempting to arrest him 1 and Robinson without authority, ask us to instruct you that he was so lar justifiable in resisting that he would only be guilty of man slaughter, or of murder on proof of express malice. We cannot affirm these points in the terms iu which they are stated. It is true, if one undertakes to arrest without authority, he is a trespasser, and the at tempt may be lawfully resisted ; and, if a sudden conflict ensues, in which, upon the excitement and provocation of the occa sion, the wrongdoer is killed, it is only manslaughter, it is our opinion, also, that Burgess Orr had no right to issue a warrant, for the misdemeanor of resisting an officer, and that Holmes had no author ity, either by virtue of the warrant, or the order giveu by Mr. Orr at the time, to arrest Robinson. ' - You will judge whether he had or had not authority, to arrest the prisoner. Assuming that iiolmes was attempting to arrest Gore, this prisoner, without authority, or that he was at tempting to arrest Robinson alone without authority, and that Gore joined in the conflict to assist Robinson, and that after he received a blow from. Holmes, as testi fied by Biershank, (who is not,, however, corroborated in this by the other witnes ses,) he, excited by that provocation, fired the shot,, and death ensued, iu either case it would only be manslaughter, unless there should be found proof of express malice. -In any one of these supposed cases, it would have to appear that the killing, to be manslaughter, was prompted at the time ; by the sudden provocation ; for, if the evidence shew that the deadly weapon used had been previously and de liberately provided for that purpose, and the fatal use of it previously contemplated and purposed, as this would be proof of express malice, the killing would be mur der; that is, an , unlawful-killing with malice. " " J . ' : You will decide the question of "fact whether Holmes' was attempting to arrest the prisoner, as well as Robinson, as some of the witnesses state, and had legal au thority to arrest him, known to him (Gore) at the time. If so, there was no provoca tion which would extenuate: the killing to manslaughter, even leaving out of view all tbe evidence of express malice. It will be. remembered that a warrant had been issued against the prisoner for larceny; and that an attempt to execute it by Con. stable Linton had been baffled : that this warrant was afterwards put in the hands of the policemen to execute, and was seen by Mr. Linton in the hands of Holmes that morning, and was, it would seem, in his hands when he attempted to arrest the' prisoner that morning at the barber-shop, when Robinson rescued him. If Holmes had that, warrant, ho had authority to ex ecute it; and, if tbe prisoner knew, in apj way, that he had it, his resistance was an unlawful act. :A policeman, or even a private person,' may lawfully arrest upon a warrant for a felony. Does the evideuce, or does it not, shew that Holmes bad such a warrant, and that he was attempting, in Fend's saloon, to arrest this prisoner as well as Robinson 1 and does it, or does it not, shew that the prisoner knew this and does it, or does it uot, shew, that, in any aspect of the case, the shooting was with MALICE? i We refer you, as tending to shew all this," to the testimony of Mr. Linton ; the evidence of what occurred ac the barber-shop, when the prisoner was arrested by Holmes, and rescued by Robinson ; of the procuring of the clubs at Patton's shop, and thei threat there male by the prisoner, that ho would buy a pistol and shoot Holmes;- of the attempt to procure a billy by Robinson at Swank's, and the buying of the pistol there at tbe same time, and loading, or getting it loaded, by this prisoner ; of tho apparent concert between this prisoner and Robinson in Fend's cellar, before the commencement of the conflict ; the testimony of Esquire iraimer, upon wnose lnlormation the war rant for larceny had been issued, 'that the prisoner, after the shooting, called to hiui on the street, "Palmer, where are vour police officers now t ' adding:, with an oath, "all the police officers you have in Johnstown can't arrest me; I don't regard them;" and threatening profauely to "attend to his case alter a while ;" to the testimony of John Ash com, that the pris oner afterwards stated to him that he had shot Holmes, and holding up his revolver, said, "aud there's the barrel I shot him with, -adding, "I'll shoot any other sou of a bitch that coes to arrest me :" - the testimony of Joseph Alwine, that Gore told him he had shot Holmes, that "pe was going to shoot turn in the breast, but missed, and shot him in the leg;" and to the testimony of Win. Dysert that the prisoner, When told by some one at the lock-up that Holmes was dead, justi fied the deed, saying that "Holmes had been abusing him ever since he returned from the army serving his country' aud declaring "if the people knew what was between him and Holmes, they would say he Wa9 right he deserved to be shot." : If, we repeat, the prisoner shot and killed the. deceased when attempting to arrest him on the warrant issued by Jus tice McKee, knowing at the time the authority under which the deceased was acting, the killing was murder. If that was not the case, -but you find that the deceased was shot in an illegal attempt to arrest the prisoner, or if you believe that the killing happened in an attempt to ar rest Robinson alone, and under the prov ocation of a blow from tbe deceased, if would be manslaughter, if there be not plain proof of express malice. Rut if, in any aspect of the case, the shooting wa preconcerted and premeditated, it would still be, and was, and is, murder. The questions of fact it is for you to decide. We have stated to you the only aspects of the case in which the prisoner would be only guilty of manslaughter. If you have reasonable doubt upon this part of the case, the prisoner is entitled to the benefit of that doubt. If your minds ara free from all doubt here, and you find the prisoner guilty of murder, the remaining inquiry is, and it is your duty to ascertain and find in your verdict, whether it is murder of the first or of the second degree. We have already explained to you the distinction, in a case like this, between the two degroes of murder. Every malicious homicide is to be regarded as simply murder, or murder of the second degree, unless it is plainly shewn to be of a class which the statute declares to be of the first decree ; and it is for the Commonwealth always to shew this beyond a reasonable doubt. If it is shewn to have been committed "by meaus of poison, or "lying-in wait, or "in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any rape, arson, burglary, or robbery," it is shewn to be of the first decree. Where. as in this case, it is not classed or included with those specified and defined, but is al- eged, as here, to be included and described in the statute as "any other kind of tcilful, deliberate, and premeditated killing," whether it is of the first or second degree, is, as we have seen, a question ot inten tion. Did the prisoner, at the time , the fatal" shot was fired, deliberately aim at life, and intend to kill? 11 he did, no matter how suddenly the purpose may have been formed, it was, upon; the well settled construction of the Act of Assem bly, a "wilful, deliberate, and premedita ted killing," and murder of the first de gree ; while, if such intention at the lime is no clearly shown, or is left in doubt, the crime is to "be deemed murder of the second; degree."; j t : Tbe evidence here is that the prisoner deliberately procured the pistol, a deadly weapoc, with, the .declared purpose,' as testified by David -Patton and others, of shooting Holmes ; that he aimed with ap parent deliberation at a part of the body, where the wound would be likely to prove mortal at the breastas testified to by Riershank, -corroborated by Fulton,' and" afterwards admitted by the prisoner to' Joseph Alwine,-when, as. that .witness testifies, he said "ho was going to ehooa him. in the breast, but missed, and shot him in the leg;" and that he afterwards justified the deed, impliedly confessing that he had done it upon a grudge or-ia revenge, when, as William Dysart testi fies, he stated that Holme had been abu sing him since he returned from the aruiv' and declared that "if' the people knew what was between them, they would' say ho was right he deserved to be shot." All this, it is urged on the part of the Commonwealth, shows, not only that, he purposed and intended to take the life of Holmes when he fired the pistol, but that it was premeditated, and done in revenue and that it was, therefore, a wilful,-deliberate, and premeditated killing, and uiut. der of the first degree. . ; , For the prisoner, upon this question, it is argued that he was at the time, and for some days, in a state of intoxication ; that he was so at the timo of making th 3 threats proven against him,-which it ia further argued were drunken bravado, aod all made in the course of a few hours, and all made, as well as his subsequent declara tions, under excitement, and when he was not in a condition to form and execute a deliberate purpose to kill, or fully appre ciate what he had done. And further, that his threat was to "shoot," and that it is not clear of doubt, in view of his ex cited sondition, that: he intended more than to wound or cripple. - And it is 'fur ther argued in his behalf, that he did not repeat the shot, when he saw no fatal ef feet immediately follow it, and did not'at ienipt to discharge any ono of the other five loads in the pistol, as it is argued he would have done,, when he saw Holme pass out of the salooj, if he intended ut the time, having it in his power, to kill him. ' : - Drunkenness, at the time of its' com mission, is not allowed by the law either to justify or excuse crime. The degree of excitement under which a party, acts, either from intoxication or any other cause, is, however, we agree, properly for the consideration of the jury, when the question, as here, relates to tbe intention with which a criminal aet was committed; and so, gentlemen, the evidence upon "this ' subject, is properly for your consideration, with all tho other evidence upon this cart ot tho -case: in rnrnlpnimr hi nmn;,. threats and subsequent admission, and in determining the intention with whinh hn fired the shot. It would Feom frrm th testimony, that the prisoner was at tho time, and for eonie davs had been Print ing, aud was at the time, to some extent. intoxicated. To what extent, .it is not so easy to determine from the tcstimnnv rf the witnesses, who are not at all aroerl n their statements upon the "subject.0 Some ot tnern represent mm aa quito drunk-; others, ts under the influence of liquor, but not so much so that he . did not seeux to k'noff and understand what he was do ing, it seems that he fell upon the street, after ho left tho cellar. ; Refore that, ' ha seemed to be actios out a purpose, which he expressed, in Patton's shop ; and at Swark's : and is described as ftiri vrltU apparent deliberation in the cellar, wheu eating oysters, and shortly before, and at the time of the unfortunate conflict. But, without detaining you longer with any comments of ours upon it, we eommend to your careful aud deliberate consideration, the evidence upon this, point, and the whale case. It only remains for us to giva a formal answer; to the poiuts submitted by ; the prisoner's counsel, and which have been all substantially answered in our general char-re. ' ' fThe court here read, and answered, the points of tbe prisoner's counsel. And nDw, gentlemen, having stated and explained to you. the law. applicable to this ca?e in any and every aspect ot it, and indicated the questions arisiog in it for your declsiou, we have performed our duty. It now becomes your duty - to-decide the important questions involved in the issue. We trust that we have been intelligible, as we have desired to be, upou every question ; so that a tedious recapit ulatiou is unnecessary.:' ' r Was the deaths of Edward Holmes caused by the shot fired by this prisoner ? If it was, is the prisoner guilty of murder or manslaughter ? If guilty of murder, is it murder of the first, or of the second degree ? ' It is your solemn and responsible duty to answer. The result muse seriously af fect the most important interests of tho prisoner and the public. - Rut while we say to you that it is your duty to give tho prisoner the benefit of any reasonabla doubt where we have instructed you he is entitled to the benefit of it, we. remind you here, as we Btated in the outset, that your duty will be discharged, and only discharged, by divestiDg yourselves pf any conscious sympathy or -prejudice which might influence your decisions, and by resting your verdict " upon your uubiascd judgment, formed just as you would form that judgmeut upon any other suoject of i! -X T ." " ' - . - . . . 1 1
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers