Ex parte Warrick

Application for Bail on Writ of Habeas Corprn. 1. Homicide; presumption of malice from use of deadly weapon. Where a homicide is committed with a deadly weapon, the onus is cast on the defendant to repel by proof the inference of malice the law raises, unless the testimony which proves the killing, proves also the justification or extenuation. 2. Oral testimony; credibility of, to be determined by the jury. — The lav-does not require that any mere oral testimony shall be believed; but of all such, whether given for or against the accused, the juiy or other tribunal, charged with the ascertainment of the facts, are the sole judges. 3. Homicide; when murder and when manslaughter. — If a homicide is perpetrated pursuant, to a previously -formed design, or in revenge of a previous wrong, real nr supposed, it'is nrurder in an aggravated form; but if the fatal blow is struck without a previously formed design, and, immediately preceding it, the deceased “grabbed at” tlie accused and “ started to strike him,” the homicide would not rise above voluntary manslaughter.

Application to this court for writ of habeas corpus and bail by party indicted for murder. Benjamin Warrick, the petitioner, being confined in the jail of Bike county under an indictment for the murder of one N. J. Lee, applied to the judge of probate of said county, Hon. W. J. Hilliard, for bail, on a writ of habeas corpus, which was refused; and thereupon this application was made, accompanied by a transcript of all the evidence adduced on the hearing before the judge of probate. The evidence, as contained in the record, shows that, on 5th March, 1883, the petitioner cut the deceased with a knife, inflicting a wound 'in the bowels, from the effects of which he died on the next day ; and tended . to show that there had been a previous difficulty between the' parties, since which they had not been on friendly terms. A dying declaration of the deceased was introduced in evidence, which was, in substance, that the petitioner had cut him, and that before he was cut, he made no hostile demonstrations whatever towards the petitioner; and in this statement he was corroborated by other witnesses. One Hendricks was examined as a witness for the State, among others, wdio testified, in substance, that a few minutes before the difficulty, the petitioner was standing in the door of his store, leaning against the door-facing, “ whittling on a litttle piece of wood with his knife,” and talking to witness, when the latter, seeing the deceased, called to him to come to his store, and went back into his store to get a bundle which 'the deceased had left there; that when lie came back the deceased was cut, and was holding his hands to his bowels; that the deceased having remarked to witness that he was cut, witness asked the petitioner what was the matter, to which he made no reply; and that he then asked him “ what the deceased did to him,” to which the petitioner replied that the deceased “grabbed at me and started to strike me, and I cut him.” The evidence of the witnesses is stated at length in the record ; but the foregoing statement is deemed sufficient for a correct understanding of the opinion.